board of directors agenda packet - scta.ca.gov · form 700 requirement (report)* 4.3. fy12/13...

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

t

AGENDA PACKET Monday, January 13, 2014

2:30 p.m.

Sonoma County Permit & Resource Management Departmen

2550 Ventura Avenue Santa Rosa, California

1

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA

January 13, 2014 – 2:30 p.m.

Sonoma County Permit & Resource Management Department Planning Commission Hearing Room – 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA

1. Call to order the meeting of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA)

2. Public comment on items not on the regular agenda 3. Consent Calendar

A. SCTA Consent 3.1. Highway 101 – Marin Sonoma Narrows Caltrans Cooperative Agreements 4-2317-A3

and 4-2213-A6 (ACTION)*

B. SCTA/RCPA Concurrent Items 3.2. Minutes of the December 9, 2013 meeting (ACTION)*

4. Regular Calendar A. SCTA/RCPA Concurrent Items

4.1. Elections of Chair and Vice Chair and appointment of Executive Committee (ACTION)*

)

4.2. Form 700 Requirement (REPORT)* 4.3. FY12/13 SCTA/RCPA Annual Report (ACTION)* 4.4. SCTA & RCPA 2014 Legislative Platforms (ACTION)*

B. SCTA 4.5. SCTA Planning

4.5.1. Proposed funding for Priority Development Area planning grants (ACTION)* 4.6. SCTA Projects and Programming

4.6.1. Local Roads – presentation on status of unincorporated roadways (REPORT4.6.2. Highways – adoption of the 2014 Highway 101 Corridor Landscaping & Tree

Planting Plan (ACTION)* 4.6.3. Highways – Update on State Highway projects (REPORT)

C. RCPA 4.7. RCPA Projects and Programs

4.7.1. RCPA activities report (REPORT)* 4.7.2. Transportation – One Day Clean Commute program (REPORT)*

5. Reports and Announcements 5.1. Executive Committee report 5.2. Regional agency reports*

SMART NCRA MTC Self Help Counties Coalition ABAG BAAQMD CALCOG GGBHTD Sonoma Clean Power

5.3. Advisory Committee agendas*

2

5.4. SCTA/RCPA staff report 5.5. Announcements

6. Adjourn *Materials attached.

The next SCTA/RCPA meetings will be held

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.sctainfo.org

February 10, 2014

DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA/RCPA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation.

SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the SCTA/RCPA after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the SCTA/RCPA office at 490 Mendocino Ave., Suite 206, during

normal business hours.

Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference with the sound recording system.

TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS: Please consider carpooling or taking transit to this meeting. For more information check www.511.org, www.srcity.org/citybus,

www.sctransit.com or www.wegorideshare.com/sonoma/

3

http://www.511.org/�

http://www.srcity.org/citybus�

http://www.sctransit.com/�

http://www.wegorideshare.com/sonoma/�

Staff Report To: Sonoma County Transportation Authority

From: James R. Cameron, Deputy Director of Projects & Programming

Item: 3.1 – Highway 101 – Marin Sonoma Narrows Caltrans Cooperative Agreements 4-2317-A3 and 4-2213-A6

Date: January 13, 2014

Shall the Board approve proposed Caltrans Cooperative Agreement Amendments 4-2317-A3 and 4-2313-A6 for right-of-way services needed to complete the Highway 101 Marin Sonoma Narrows (MSN) B2 and C3 contracts.

Issue:

SCTA and Caltrans entered into two cooperative agreements with Caltrans (Coops 4-2213 and 4-2217)

for right of way services for what are now the Marin Sonoma Narrows Contracts B2 and C3. Initially, the Contacts were named MSN B2 (Petaluma Boulevard South Interchange) and MSN B4 (Petaluma River Bridge and Lakeville Highway Interchange). After several rounds of funding and programming changes, the Petaluma River Bridge scope was added to MSN Contract B2 and the remaining LakevilleHighway Interchange scope was renamed Contract C3.

Background:

Both Contracts are now in construction, but the right-of-way process is still on-going. The MSN B2 and C3 Contracts required the full or partial acquisition and/or temporary construction easements on thirty (30) parcels. SCTA previously approved the programming of $1.9M of Measure M funds for right-of-way support and engineering to acquire the right-of-way needs to construct these projects. Several of these parcels required eminent domain proceedings to obtain possession of the parcels. Although most of the lawsuits are now settled, five (5) parcels remain in litigation and require additional support budget to complete the acquisition process. Additionally, final right-of-way engineering will be needed post construction to set new property boundaries and to provide final mapping. Caltrans estimated that$850K is needed to complete the right-of-way support and engineering for MSN Contracts B2 and C3. In December 2013, the SCTA Board took action to program an additional $850K towards the right of way costs of these two contracts.

Coop 4-2317 was originally written for the MSN-B4 contract and is 100% funded by Measure M for right-of-way capital and support services. The Coop has been amended two times and currently provides budgets of $615,000 (100% Caltrans) for capital cost and $500,000 ($200 Caltrans + $300K SCTA) for support cost. SCTA support cost was used for appraisal and acquisition agent services and is still being used for legal services. As part of positioning the project for construction, SCTA programmed and entered into a contract to buy wetland mitigation credits at a cost of $182,490, which is not reflected on this coop agreement. Proposed Amendment 3 accounts for the previously approvedSCTA spending of $182,490 on capital (Measure M funds already committed) and proposes to increasefunding for Caltrans to $271,876, which represents the Caltrans current expenditures ($71,876

4

increase in budget). All future Caltrans expenditures on MSN-B2 or C3 will be accounted for on Coop 4-2313.

Coop 4-2313 has been amended five times and currently provides a $1,400K (100% Measure M funds)

for right-of-way support. The support budget is split $1,200K for Caltrans and $160K for SCTA. SCTAis providing acquisition services with its portion of the budget. With all future charges for the MSN B2 and C3 right of way contracts to be charged to Coop 4-2313, Caltrans has requested a budget increaseof $778,000 to complete the right of way support and engineering services for this contract. This wouldincrease the total Measure M commitment for support services to $2,178K. An additional $5,779K of Measure M is committed for PS&E and right-of-way capital, which is not proposed to change as part ofthis amendment.

None.

Policy Impacts:

SCTA previously programmed and authorized $182,490 in Measure M - Highway 101 program funds to

purchase wetland mitigation credits, independent of Coop 4-2317. This funding is proposed to be added to Coop 4-2317 to represent SCTA's full commitment to the project. As part of the 2014 Measure M Strategic Plan development, the SCTA Board approved programming $850K for right-of-way budget increases on the MSN B2 and C3 Contracts. The two proposed amendments add $849,876 in Measure M funds for right-of-way support costs. Since this funding is represented in the approved programming for Measure M, there are no new financial impacts.

Fiscal Impacts:

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chair to execute the attached Amendment No. 3 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2217 increasing the budget for right-of-way capital by $182,490 and increasing the budget for right-of-way support services by $71,876, in substantially similar form as provided for in the attachment, subject to the final review and approval by legal counsel.

Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chair to execute the attached Amendment No. 6 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2213 increasing the budget for right-of-way support services by $778,000, insubstantially similar form as provided for in the attachment, subject to the final review and approval by legal counsel.

5

Resolution No. 2014-001

Sonoma County Transportation AuthoritySanta Rosa, California

January 13, 2014

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE FOLLOWING TWO AMENDMENTS TO THE HIGHWAY 101 MSN PROJECT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS):

1) AMENDMENT 3 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 4-2313 FOR PS&E FOR THE MSN-B4/C3 (HOV) PROJECTS AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $1,369,366 IN MEASURE M - 101

PROGRAM FUNDS

2) AMENDMENT 6 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 4-2313 FOR PS&E AND ROW FOR THEMSN-B2/C3 PROJECTS AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $7,957,000 IN MEASURE MPROGRAM FUNDS

WHEREAS, SCTA is authorized to provide Measure M funds for project development and construction of

certain transportation projects though the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and; WHEREAS, Cooperative Agreement No. 4-2317 was previously executed with Caltrans and amendedtwo times for right of way capital and support cost for the MSN-B4/C3 Contract at a cost not to exceed$1,115,000 in Measure M 101 Program funds; and WHEREAS, the estimated final cost to complete the work specified in Coop 4-2317 is $1,369,366, which hasbeen authorized by programming included in the development of the 2014 Strategic Plan. WHEREAS, Cooperative Agreement No. 4-2313 was previously executed with Caltrans and amendedfive times for the preparation Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) and right of way capital andsupport services needed for the MSN-B2 Contract at a cost not to exceed $7,179,000 in Measure M 101Program funds; and WHEREAS, the estimated final cost to complete the work specified in Coop 4-2317 is $7,957,00, which hasbeen authorized by programming included in the development of the 2014 Strategic Plan; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Directors of the Sonoma County TransportationAuthority authorizes the chair to execute Amendment 3 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2317 and Amendment6 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2313 with the California Department of Transportation, in substantiallysimilar form as provided for in the attachment, subject to the final review and approval by legal counsel. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was moved by Director , seconded by Director and approvedby the following vote:

Director Allen Director Landman Director Carlstrom Director Mackenzie Director Chambers Director McGuire Director Gallian Director Rabbitt Director Gurney Director Russell Director Harris Director Zane

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: SO ORDERED

6

Resolution No. 2014-001

Sonoma County Transportation Authority Santa Rosa, California

January 13, 2014 I, the undersigned, certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority held on January 13, 2014. ______________________________________ Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Clerk, Sonoma County Transportation Authority

7

04-SON-101-2.2/4.1

EA: 2640CDistrict Agreement 04-2317-A3

PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 1 of 5

DRAFT 12/17/13

AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT This Amendment No. 3 (AMENDMENT), entered into and effective on ___________________,

s is between the State of California, acting through its Department of Transportation, referred to aCALTRANS, and

Sonoma County Transportation Authority, a public corporation referred to as SCTA.

RECITALS 1. CALTRANS and SCTA, collectively referred to as PARTNERS, entered into

Cooperative Agreement No. 4-2317 (AGREEMENT) on February 18, 2011, defining the

e

st

e

terms and conditions for developing and financing the Right of Way (R/W) for a portionof the Marin-Sonoma Narrows (MSN) project from the new Petaluma Boulevard South overcrossing of U.S. 101 to the Intersection of U.S. 101 with Route 116. This portion ofthe project is also known as MSN Contract B4, and referred to herein as PROJECT.

2. PARTNERS entered into Amendment 1 to AGREEMENT on July 26, 2011, to (a) revisthe FUNDING SUMMARY to reflect a $215,000 increase in Measure M funds towards R/W Capital from $400,000 to $615,000; (b) revise the Scope Summary to identify the R/W tasks (appraisal, acquisition and condemnation) on which SCTA had agreed to assiCALTRANS; and (c) add a SPENDING SUMMARY designating $100,000 in R/W Support to SCTA for its R/W assistance, thereby splitting the $500,000 in Measure M funds programmed towards R/W Support between SCTA ($100,000) and Caltrans ($400,000).

3. PARTNERS entered into Amendment 2 to AGREEMENT on October 20, 2011, to revisthe SPENDING SUMMARY to reflect a split in the $500,000 of Measure M R/W Support of which $200,000 is designated to CALTRANS and $300,000 to SCTA for SCTA’s use of Sonoma County legal services in the event of condemnation.

4. PARTNERS now seek to amend AGREEMENT to (a) revise the FUNDING

SUMMARY to reflect a $182,490 increase in Measure M funds towards R/W Capital from $615,000 to $797,490, and an increase of $71,876 in Measure M funds towards R/W Support from $500,000 to $571,876; (b) update the R/W Capital SPENDING SUMMARY designating $615,000 to CALTRANS and $182,490 to SCTA; and (c) update the R/W Support SPENDING SUMMARY designating $271,876 to CALTRANSand $300,000 to SCTA.

IT IS THEREFORE MUTUALLY AGREED:

8

District Agreement 04-2317-A3


5. The attached FUNDING SUMMARY A-3 will replace the FUNDING SUMMARY in AGREEMENT, as amended under Amendment 1, in its entirety.

6. The attached SPENDING SUMMARY A-3 will replace the SPENDING SUMMARY in

AGREEMENT, as amended under Amendments 1 and 2, in its entirety. 7. All other terms and conditions of AGREEMENT, as amended under Amendments 1 and

2, shall remain in full force and effect. 8. AMENDMENT is deemed to be included and made a part of AGREEMENT, as amended

under Amendments 1 and 2.

CONTACT INFORMATION

The information provided below indicates the primary contact data for each partner to this agreement. PARTNERS will notify each other in writing of any personnel or location changes. These changes do not require an amendment to this agreement.

The primary agreement contact person for CALTRANS is: Wajahat Nyaz, Project Manager 111 Grand Avenue Oakland, California 94612 Office Phone: (510) 286-5119 Mobile Phone: (510) 715-6273 Email: [email protected] The primary agreement contact person for SCTA is: James Cameron, Deputy Director of Projects and Programming 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206 Santa Rosa, California 95401 Office Phone: (707) 565-5377 Email: [email protected]

9



SIGNATURES PARTNERS declare that:

1. Each PARTNER is an authorized legal entity under California state law. 2. Each PARTNER has the authority to enter into this AMENDMENT. 3. The people signing this AMENDMENT have the authority to do so on behalf of their

public agencies. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By:

Helena (Lenka) Culik-Caro Deputy District Director - Design

CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: By:

Kevin M. Strough District Budget Manager

SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY By:______________________________

SCTA Chair Attest:____________________________

SCTA Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE By:______________________________

County Counsel

10

04-SON-101-2.2/4.1 EA: 2640C



FUNDING SUMMARY A-3

Fund

ing

Sour

ce

Fund

ing

Part

ner

Fund

Typ

e

R/W

Cap

ital

R/W

Sup

port

Subt

otal

Su

ppor

t

Subt

otal

C

apita

l

Subt

otal

Fu

nds

Type

LOCAL SCTA Measure M $797,490 $571,876 $571,876 $797,490 $1,369,366

Subtotals by Component $797,490 $571,876 $571,876 $797,490 $1,369,366

11

04-SON-101-2.2/4.1 EA: 2640C



SPENDING SUMMARY A-3

Right of Way Capital

Description Work Partner assigned by

Scope Summary

SCTA Measure M

R/W Capital – 225.55.10 CALTRANS $615,000

R/W Capital - 225.55.10 SCTA $182,490

Total CALTRANS/SCTA $797,490

Right of Way Support

Description Work Partner assigned by

Scope Summary

SCTA Measure M

R/W - 195, 200, 220, 225, 245, 255, 300, 999 CALTRANS $271,876

R/W - 195, 200, 220, 225, 245, 255, 300, 999 SCTA $300,000

TOTALS CALTRANS/SCTA $571,876

12

04-SON-101-0.4/2.9

EA: 26408District Agreement 04-2213-A6

PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 1 o

f 5

e

se

t

to de

r

DRAFT 12/17/13

AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

This AMENDMENT NO. 6 (AMENDMENT), entered into and effective on __________________________________, is between the State of California, acting through its Department of Transportation, referred to as CALTRANS, and

Sonoma County Transportation Authority, a public corporation referred to as SCTA.

RECITALS 1. CALTRANS and SCTA, collectively referred to as PARTNERS, entered into

Cooperative Agreement No. 4-2213 (AGREEMENT) on February 23, 2009, defining thterms and conditions for developing and financing a highway improvement project, referred to as PROJECT, consisting of an interchange at Petaluma Boulevard South andRoute 101 and frontage road in Sonoma County.

2. PARTNERS entered into Amendment No. 1 to AGREEMENT on October 5, 2010, to reduce the amount that SCTA will be reimbursed for performing PS&E tasks from $250,000 to $118,000 and also to adjust the funding commitments for an overall increaof $2,925,000.

3. PARTNERS entered into Amendment No. 2 to AGREEMENT on July 26, 2011, to identify those R/W Support tasks that SCTA will perform and be reimbursed an amounof $50,000 and also to adjust the funding commitments for an overall increase of $2,200,000.

4. PARTNERS entered into Amendment No. 3 to AGREEMENT on October 20, 2011, toincrease the amount SCTA will be reimbursed for performing R/W Support tasks from $50,000 to $100,000 and also to adjust the funding commitments with no change to theoverall funding total.

5. PARTNERS entered into Amendment No. 4 to AGREEMENT on March 27, 2012, to increase the amount SCTA will be reimbursed for performing R/W Support tasks from $100,000 to $160,000.

6. PARTNERS entered into Amendment No. 5 to AGREEMENT on November 26, 2012,adjust the funding commitments for an overall increase of $3,809,000 and also to provi$50,000 of Measure M R/W Capital spending to SCTA for initial work necessary to prepare the Marin Sonoma Narrows (MSN) Corridor Mitigation and Monitoring Plan foRiparian Mitigation

13



7. PARTNERS now seek to amend AGREEMENT to increase the amount CALTRANS will be reimbursed for R/W Support by $778,000 with Measure M funding. Total R/W Support is increased from $1,400,000 to $2,178,000.

IT IS THEREFORE MUTUALLY AGREED: 8. The FUNDING SUMMARY of AGREEMENT, as amended under Amendment No.5 is

replaced in its entirety by FUNDING SUMMARY A-6, attached to and made a part of AMENDMENT, and any reference to the FUNDING SUMMARY in AGREEMENT isdeemed a reference to FUNDING SUMMARY A-6.

9. The SPENDING SUMMARY of AGREEMENT, as amended under Amendment No. 5,is replaced in its entirety by SPENDING SUMMARY A-6, attached to and made a part of AMENDMENT, and any reference to SPENDING SUMMARY in AGREEMENT isdeemed a reference to SPENDING SUMMARY A-6.

10. All other terms and conditions of AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect.

11. AMENDMENT is deemed to be included in, and made a part of, AGREEMENT.

CONTACT INFORMATION

The information provided below indicates the primary contact data for each partner to this agreement. PARTNERS will notify each other in writing of any personnel or location changes. These changes do not require an amendment to this agreement.

The primary agreement contact person for CALTRANS is: Wajahat Nyaz, Project Manager 111 Grand Avenue Oakland, California 94612 Office Phone: (510) 286-5119 Mobile Phone: (510) 715-6273 Email: [email protected] The primary agreement contact person for SCTA is: James Cameron, Deputy Director Projects and Programming 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206 Santa Rosa, California 95401 Office Phone: (707) 565-5377 Email: [email protected]

14



SIGNATURES PARTNERS declare that:

1. Each PARTNER is an authorized legal entity under California state law. 2. Each PARTNER has the authority to enter into this AMENDMENT. 3. The people signing this AMENDMENT have the authority to do so on behalf of their

public agencies. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By:

Helena (Lenka) Culik-Caro Deputy District Director - Design

CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: By:

Kevin M. Strough District Budget Manager

SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY By:______________________________

SCTA Chair Attest:____________________________

SCTA Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE By:______________________________

County Counsel

15

04-SON-101-0.4EA: 26

District Agreement 04-2213

/2.9 408 -A6


FUNDING SUMMARY A-6

Fund

ing

Sour

ce

Fund

ing

Part

ner

Fund

ing

Type

Des

ign

R/W

Cap

ital

R/W

Sup

port

Subt

otal

Su

ppor

t

Subt

otal

C

apita

l

Subt

otal

Fu

nds

Type

STATE SCTA STIP/RIP $0 $15,024,000 $0 $0 $15,024,000 $15,024,000 STATE CALTRANS TCRP $1,220,000 $0 $0 $1,220,000 $0 $1,220,000 LOCAL SCTA Measure M $4,364,000 $1,415,000 $2,178,000 $6,542,000 $1,415,000 $7,957,000

Subtotals by Component $5,584,000 $16,439,000 $2,178,000 $7,762,000 $16,439,000 $24,201,000

16

04-SON-101-0.4/2.9 EA: 26408



SPENDING SUMMARY A-6 Design (PS&E)

Work Partner assigned by CALTRANS SCTA Description Scope TCRP Measure M

Summary PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND CALTRANS $1,102,000 $0 ESTIMATES (PS&E) - 240, 250, 999

PLANS , SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) - 185, 230, 235, 255, SCTA $118,000 $4,364,000 260, 999

TOTALS CALTRANS/SCTA $1,220,000 $4,364,000

Right of Way Capital

Description Work Partner SCTA STIP/RIP

SCTA Measure M

Right of Way (RW) Capital CALTRANS $15,024,000 $1,365,000

Environmental Mitigation SCTA $0 $50,000

TOTALS CALTRANS/SCTA $15,024,000 $1,415,000

Right of Way Support

Description Work Partner

assigned by Scope Summary

SCTA Measure M

RIGHT OF WAY (R/W) -245, 255, 300, 999

195, 200, 220, 225, CALTRANS $2,018,000

RIGHT OF WAY (R/W) - 225, 245 SCTA $160,000

TOTALS CALTRANS/SCTA $2,178,000

17

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

Meeting Minutes of December 9, 2013

1. Call to order the meeting of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA)

Meeting called to order at 2:35 p.m. by Chair Mike McGuire.

Directors Present: Mike McGuire, Chair; Director Allen, Town of Windsor; Director Chambers, City of Healdsburg; Director Carlstrom, City of Santa Rosa, Alternate Director Combs, City of Santa Rosa; Director Gallian, City of Sonoma; Director Gurney, City of Sebastopol; Director Harris, City of Petaluma; Director Landman, City of Cotati; Director Mackenzie, City of Rohnert Park; Director Rabbitt, Supervisor, District 2; Director Russell, City of Cloverdale; Director Zane, Supervisor, District 3.

2. Public comment on items not on the regular agenda

None.

3. Consent Calendar

A. SCTA Consent 3.1. Highway 101 – 2014 State Transportation

Improvement Program (STIP) technical adjustments (ACTION)*

3.2. Measure M – Santa Rosa Creek Trail adjustment/appropriation; Resolution No. 2013-030 (ACTION)*

B. SCTA/RCPA Concurrent Items 3.3. Minutes of the October 14, 2013 meeting

(ACTION)* 3.4. Admin – FY12/13 Annual Audits: SCTA,

Measure M and RCPA (ACTION)* 3.5. 2014 schedule of meetings for SCTA/RCPA

Board and committees (ACTION)*

Motion by Director Mackenzie, seconded by Director Landman, to approve the consent calendar as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.

4. Regular Calendar

C. RCPA 4.1. RCPA Planning

4.1.1. Climate Action 2020 (ACTION)*

• Update on initial public outreach meetings

Ms. Mersich summarized recent public outreach meeting activity, noting that overall attendance by regular residents was low, with a contingent of disruptive attendees. It was determined that staff would not present the PowerPoint slide show, but Ms. Mersich invited anyone interested in seeing it to let her know and she would provide it for them. She noted that this format change allowed her to respond individually to public questions and comments.

Ms. Mersich summarized the schedule of remaining meetings to be held and explained that she would provide a report to the Board at its next meeting. There has been good media coverage, with a listing of upcoming public outreach meetings published in The Press Democrat, Windsor Times, Healdsburg Tribune, and Sonoma West Times & News.

• Draft GHG emissions inventory

Ms. Mersich presented the draft Countywide Emissions Greenhouse Gas Inventory, which was provided at the public outreach meetings and will be posted on the website.

Ms. Mersich next presented the Stakeholder Advisory Group member list for approval by the Board.

The Board commended staff for their hard work and the professional manner in which they conducted the public outreach meetings.

Motion by Director Gallian, seconded by Director Chambers, to approve the final list for the Stakeholder Advisory Group. Motion passed unanimously.

4.1.2. Urban Footprint – update on countywide planning effort (REPORT)*

Lauren Casey reported on this collaboration between the RCPA and the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. Minor questions involving the Memorandum of Understanding between the District and Sonoma County Department of Transportation and Public Works remain to be resolved prior to issuing a

18

Request for Authorization and a Request for Proposals shortly thereafter.

4.2. RCPA Projects and Programs 4.2.1. Energy Efficiency – overview matrix

f

for consumers (ACTION)*

Ms. Casey reported that RCPA staff and SCEIP stafdeveloped a set of matrices summarizing available programs and resources for single family homeowners, multiple family property owners and small businesses in Sonoma County. This is an effort to make information easily available and understandable to the consumer.

Board comments included the need to include the Chambers of Commerce on the organizational outreach list, as well as local newspapers. In response to Board requests, Ms. Casey offered to have staff address their respective City Councils. She reported that staff had given a presentation to the Healdsburg City Council and agreed to do this for the City of Cloverdale.

Director Gallian commented on the impressive display of green businesses at the Economic Development seminar held recently in Rohnert Parkand observed that the impact of energy efficiency is getting publicized.

Director Carlstrom raised the issue of renters and limitations they face in trying to implement energy efficiency measures.

Additional Board comments expressed appreciation for the matrices, noting they are easy to use and understand.

Motion by Director Russell, seconded by Director Gallian, to approve the matrices for consumers as submitted by staff. Motion carried unanimously.

4.2.2. Energy Efficiency update on single family home and multi-family home outreach (REPORT)*

Ms. Casey summarized information on the status of outreach to residents of single family homes. Staff will be leveraging statewide and regional marketing and outreach around Energy Upgrade California, conducting direct outreach locally for the programs staff is administering through BayREN, and conducting indirect outreach through other County partners.

Ms. Casey announced that Adriana Stagnaro, Climate Corps Fellow, will be helping to implement ahomeowner’s workshop campaign on energy efficiency, to be held as a brown-bag lunch or evening event.

Cross-promotion with other agencies and organizations is also taking place (e.g., the Green Business Program).

In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Casey

explained that a forum is scheduled for specialty contractors to recruit new contractors from the HVAC sector and insulation markets and train them on these programs. Free regional trainings are also scheduled for contractors to become participating contractors in the home upgrade program.

In response to further questions from the Board, Ms.Casey summarized the various organizations involved in these programs and their relationship to one another, and in the various programs.

4.3. RCPA Administration 4.3.1. RCPA Administrative Code and

dues payment (ACTION)*

Chair McGuire acknowledged and thanked Director Harris for following up on payment of dues on behalfof the City of Petaluma.

Ms. Smith reported that following research and consultation with County Counsel, two options were identified for jurisdictions that do not pay dues: (1) the Administrative Code could be amended to exclude those jurisdictions that do not pay dues fromfunding programs; or (2) the Board could exercise discretion in approving budgets and programs and consider what, if any, consequences could be enforced for those jurisdictions that do not pay dues.She confirmed that the City of Petaluma is paid in full for this fiscal year.

Discussion followed regarding establishing an effective policy for handling instances where a jurisdiction has not paid RCPA dues. Director Harris explained that there had been an outstanding issue with invoicing that has since been resolved.

In response to Board questions, Ms. Smith explained benefits of RCPA membership; specifically, direct financial benefits connected with grants. She also explained the budgeting and invoicing process.

Motion by Director Mackenzie, seconded by DirectorGallian, to establish a policy that SCTA/RCPA dues (for both agencies) are to be paid annually by each jurisdiction; funding of projects administered throughthe SCTA/RCPA would exclude those jurisdictions that have not paid their dues. Motion passed unanimously.

Chair McGuire welcomed Mayor Callahan of Rohnert Park and Council Member Combs of Santa Rosa.

NOTE: At this point, Director Carlstrom left the meeting and Alternate Director Combs took her place.

4.4. SCTA Projects and Programming

19

4.4.1. Transit – status of Clipper implementation on Sonoma County transit systems (REPORT)*

Diane Dohm updated the Board on activities related

t

,

r

to Clipper implementation in Sonoma County. She noted that Sonoma County is the last area of the region to get Clipper cards; this means that it will ge“next generation” devices.

A meeting was held between MTC, consultant CH2M Hill, all Sonoma County transit operators, SMART, and Marin Transit. Next steps are for eachtransit operator to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Clipper implementation is expected to take place in 2016.

Director and MTC Commissioner Mackenzie expressed concern regarding the effect of SMART service on Clipper implementation and urged close attention to this process.

Steve Birdlebough of Friends of SMART commended SCTA staff and other staff involved in this effort.

4.4.2. Alternative Transportation – Transportation Fund for Clean Air proposed adjustment to locally established criteria (ACTION)*

Ms. Dohm explained the source and allocation of TFCA funding (a $4.00 surcharge on vehicle registration fees in the Bay area).

Ms. Dohm next summarized the criteria as originallyestablished by the Board in 2006: Sonoma County and the City of Santa Rosa receive a guaranteed percentage of TFCA funding; the remaining fundinggoes into a competitive fund for which the remainingeligible jurisdictions (Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol, Cotati and Windsor) can apply.

Ms. Dohm noted that this year the City of Petaluma has engaged SCTA to obtain additional ongoing funding, as they have experienced significant growth. This will help fund transit marketing projectsthe Travel Trainer Program, the Summer Youth Pass, and similar projects.

The proposed change in TFCA criteria would reducethe competitive portion of TFCA funds from 35.94%to approximately 22%.

Motion by Director Mackenzie, seconded by DirectoZane, to approve the modification of TFCA criteria as proposed. Motion passed unanimously.

4.4.3. Highways – report on proposed ramp metering project in Hwy 101 corridor (ACTION)*

James Cameron presented PowerPoint slides to update the Board on ramp metering activities. He explained the functions of this technology and how a

locally responsive system gauges and responds/adjusts to the level of traffic activity on a

e

T,

2 nd

.

a .

given freeway onramp. The ‘end-of-queue’ loop overrides this system in order to avoid congestion backing up into arterial streets. Ramp metering is tentatively scheduled to start in March 2014.

In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Cameron reviewed the principle of metering – thatthis reduces congestion by barring all vehicles on the ramp from entering the freeway at the same timand creating a “log-jam” effect. He said that he would look into what defines a “disproportionate delay.” He explained the operation of the sensors,including the queue loop, and noted that these would be operational only during peak periods of traffic. He also agreed to check into the signal thatreads “one car per green light” and how this is operated/how frequently it allows cars to enter thefreeway. He added that queue loops are typically designed in accordance with right-of-way impacts,which limits the size of the ramp.

4.4.4. Measure M – 2014 Measure M Strategic Plan programming adjustments (ACTION)*

Mr. Cameron presented proposed programming adjustments to Local Street Projects (LSP), SMARand Highway 101 projects: Staff is recommendingLSP programming of $1.246M for a follow-up landscaping project at the Airport Boulevard/Highway 101 Interchange project; $4.340M to SMART to help fund eligible costs for the Initial Operating Segment (IOC) from Santa Rosa to San Rafael; and a total of $8,350,000 for Highway 101 projects (MSN-B2/C3, MSN-C2, and101 corridor landscaping).

Mr. Cameron pointed out two areas of risk that arecurrently being closely monitored: (1) The MSN B-for support costs and associated issues, includingenvironmental concerns regarding nesting birds; a(2) in the Central C project, four cases of eminent domain proceedings that are currently in progress

In response to Board comments, Mr. Cameron explained that there are two more nesting seasonsto go through on the MSN B-2 project.

Additional Board comments included requests for clearer and larger font/format that is easier to readMr. Cameron offered to make this information available in whatever format the Board requests.

Motion by Director Zane, seconded by Director Allen, to approve the proposed 2014 Measure M programming adjustments as presented. Motion carried unanimously.

4.4.5. Measure M – SMART update presentation and funding requests

20

• Inter-program loan, adjustment to Measure M programming, appropriation request; Resolution No. 2013-031 (ACTION)*

Seana Gause presented an allocation request by SMART for $4.34M for design and construction activities associated with station site development, rail line and grade crossings to move the proposed SMART station site from Coddingtown to the Sonoma County Airport.

Director Mackenzie noted that this is an example of

c t

a

r.

cooperation between MTC, SCTA and SMART, andthat it will be addressed at the upcoming MTC Commissioner meeting, where he will be voting in favor of this action.

Director Zane added that this incremental funding ishelping SMART to progress in providing service further north to Cloverdale.

In response to questions from Director Combs, Ms.Gause explained that the $4.34M is for additional funding and is not designated to specific locations. For further details on additional funding for a specifilocation, Ms. Gause offered to look into the contracand advise Director Combs accordingly.

Further questions from the Board involved possibleimpact on LSP funding and the 101 Corridor Landscape Plan; Chair McGuire confirmed there is no impact on LSP funding as this is all funding designated to SMART; this allocation is essentially request for early funding. Ms. Gause confirmed thatthis would not delay the corridor plan.

Motion by Director Zane, seconded by Director Russell, to approve the SMART appropriation request as presented. Motion passed unanimously.

4.4.6. Highways – Update on State Highway projects (REPORT)

Mr. Cameron reported that concrete pour of soffit and stems have been completed on the Airport Boulevard Interchange overcrossing; the deck will be poured the following week. In January false workwill be removed.

Precast girders have been set in place over the freeway on the Central C project. A traffic shift will take place in late January/early February. In response to Board questions, Mr. Cameron explained that the use of precast concrete girders isdue to the minimal vertical clearance below the bridge.

A celebration was held the previous week for the East Washington Street project; the contractor will be completing final “punch list” items early next yea

On the B-2 project, concrete pour of soffit and stems

it

r

r

e r

d

is complete and the deck will be poured later this week.

A major traffic shift on the MSN C-3 (Hwy 116/Lakeville) project that was originally scheduled for December 10 has been postponed due to weather, primarily the cold temperatures. All traffic will be shifted to the southbound structure that was recently widened, which will allow for demolition andreplacement of the northbound bridge.

5. Reports and Announcements 5.1. Executive Committee report

The Executive Committee did not meet.

5.2. Regional agency reports* SMART NCRA MTC Self Help Counties Coalition ABAG BAAQMD CALCOG GGBHTD Sonoma Clean Power

Director Mackenzie had nothing to report on CALCOG.

Director Mackenzie noted that MTC is still under suon Plan Bay Area; there is no restraining order so this is proceeding as planned.

Director Zane reported on BAAQMD and Sonoma Clean Power; she announced that oil refineries are expanding and emphasized the need to invest in clean energy; she also announced a Spare the Air Day on this date and stated that there will be stricteenforcement of Spare the Air Day, with a potential fine of up to $400.00 following one warning. In response to questions from the Board, she also noted that Spare the Air Days are posted online at the BAAQMD website, where consumers can register online to receive email notification or be notified by a telephone call of Spare the Air Days.

Director Zane next announced that Sonoma Clean Power signed a contract with Cal Pine and as another upcoming contract for competitive rates.

Director Landman added that Sonoma Clean Powealso signed their primary energy contract with Constellation.

Director Mackenzie announced that the Local Government Commission is presenting a conferencFebruary 13-15, 2014; “13th Annual New Partners foSmart Growth: Building Safe, Healthy, Equitable anProsperous Communities” in Denver, Colorado, andinvited anyone interested to attend, noting that scholarships are available to assist with funding travel-related expenses for this conference.

Director Rabbitt announced that he was ratified as Vice President of ABAG and reported that San Rafael was removed from the list of PDAs. Plan Bay

21

Area will be updated every five years. He noted that

Santa Rosa has joined in the lawsuit against Plan Bay Area. There will be a charge for parking at Larkspur Ferry and Golden Gate Bridge tolls will beincreasing.

Director Mackenzie notified the Board of a report onPDA implementation at the MTC website and referred Directors to a PowerPoint presentation.

5.3. Advisory Committee agendas*

Included in agenda packet.

5.4. SCTA/RCPA staff report – vehicle registration fee proposal

Suzanne Smith referred the Board to the Self Help Counties Coalition’s conference announcement of aproposal to circulate an initiative to assess a 1% vehicle registration fee to be allocated to local road repair. She offered to forward the draft proposed allocation formula to the Board.

5.5. Announcements

Chair McGuire announced that the Tree Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations would be presentedat the January Board meeting.

6. Adjourn

4:33 p.m.

22

Staff Report To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors

From: Suzanne Smith, Executive Director

Item: 4.1 – Election of Officers for 2014


Who shall be the 2014 officers of the SCTA/RCPA?

Issue:

The Sonoma County Transportation Authority Ordinance No. 3 requires that at the first meeting of each

e

r

calendar year, the SCTA elect a Chair and Vice-Chair to serve during the upcoming year. The ordinances state that, “The position of Chair shall be rotated bi-annually and no person shall serve consecutive terms as Chair. At no time should two Members from the Board of Supervisors or two Members from City or Town Councils hold both the Chair and Vice Chair positions.”

Background:

In 2012 the Chair was Mike McGuire, BOS; Vice Chair was Sarah Gurney, Sebastopol

In 2012 the Chair was Valerie Brown, BOS; Vice Chair was Sarah Gurney, Sebastopol

In 2011 the Chair was Jake Mackenzie, Rohnert Park; Vice Chair was Valerie Brown, BOS

In 2010 the Chair was Jake Mackenzie, Rohnert Park; Vice Chair was Valerie Brown, BOS

In 2009 the Chair was Mike Kerns, BOS; the Vice Chair was Jake Mackenzie, Rohnert Park

In 2008 the Chair was Mike Kerns, BOS; the Vice Chair was Lisa Schaffner, Healdsburg

In 2007 the Chair was Bob Jehn, Cloverdale; the Vice Chair was Mike Kerns, BOS

In 2006 the Chair was Bob Jehn, Cloverdale; the Vice Chair was Mike Kerns, BOS

The selection of the Executive Committee takes place at the first meeting of the year as well. OrdinancNo. 3 states, “The Executive Committee shall have two members, in addition to the Chair, Vice-Chair and one alternate. The selection of the Executive Committee shall take place annually, in conjunction with the selection of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board. The Board shall individually nominate members of the Executive Committee, and each nominee shall be appointed after receiving a majority vote of the full Board.”

The current Executive Committee members are Chair McGuire, Vice Chair Gurney, and Directors Rabbitt and Mackenzie. Director Russell is the alternate.

Not applicable.

Policy/Fiscal Impacts:

Accept nominations for and elect officers to serve as Chair, Vice Chair and the Executive Committee fo2014. No resolution is required although an action must be recorded in the meeting minutes.

Staff Recommendation:

23

Staff Report To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors

From: Suzanne Smith, Executive Director

Item: 4.2 – Form 700 submittal


Board Member FPPC Form 700s are due March 31, 2014.

Issue:

Background: Board Members and alternates are required to submit a Form 700 as members of the SCTA/RCPA. Please see the following web site for the form or contact Marge Fernandez at [email protected]

it

for further assistance. The form may be filled out online; however, it cannot be electronically filed, as requires an original signature. A detailed notification letter with instructions will be sent to your mailingaddress that we have on file.

http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=500

As Directors, you may use the same Form you submit as an elected official in your jurisdiction but thereport must cover any potential conflicts countywide and not just within the city you represent.

None

Policy Impacts:

None

Fiscal Impacts:

Please submit a signed Form 700 to the SCTA/RCPA office by March 31, 2014.


24

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=500�

2014 Legislative Principles CLIMATE CHANGE

1. Monitor the federal and State processed related to new climate change and energy bills.

2. Advocate for funding opportunities to implement climate change projects and programs that will help Sonoma County reach its emission reduction and adaptation goals. Options may include:

• SB375 implementation

• CPUC activities related to energy and energy efficiency

lementation rules and ard, the State Office of Pla

• Cap and trade

• Public goods charge

• Carbon pricing

• Climate Adaptation

3. Monitor and participate in the development and issuance of impregulations by State agencies such as the California Air Resources Bo nning

,

and Research, California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission.

4. Monitor and participate in the implementation of SB 375, including plans for attainment of regional emission reduction targets. Continue efforts to ensure that local participation in Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) is a priority at the regional level.

5. Oppose efforts to reduce or divert funding from climate protection and support efforts to protectpreserve and enhance climate protection funding.

25

2014 Legislative Principles TRANSPORTATION

1. Monitor the federal process related to new federal transportation legislation – development of the successor to MAP-21 or any changes, extensions or clean up to MAP-21.

2. Monitor any efforts at the federal and State level to implement funding or financing mechanisms that could impact transportation.

3. Engage in administrative deliberations on project delivery and implementation at the federal and State level. Advocate for efficiencies in project delivery and cost cutting measures that enable more projects to be built.

4. Advocate for legislative or administrative proposals to increase overall funding levels for transportation infrastructure, operations and maintenance in Sonoma County. Options may include:

• Cap and trade revenue

• Vehicle registration fee

• Vehicle miles traveled tax

• Fuel tax

• Carbon tax

• Statewide bond

5. Advocate for reduction of the voter threshold for special sales tax measures.

6. Oppose efforts to reduce or divert funding from transportation projects and support efforts to repay, protect and preserve transportation funding.

7. Focus on advocacy for funding distribution approaches that support local needs an priorities.

26


From: Janet Spilman, Deputy Director, Planning & Public Outreach

Item: 4.5.1 – Proposed funding for Priority Development Area planning grants


Issue: What is the status of Priority Development Area (PDA) planning funds allocated to the SCTA?

Background: $20 million in regional PDA planning program funds have been made available to support local jurisdictions in their planning and implementation of PDAs. Funding is distributed to the county transportation planning agencies using the One Bay Area grant (OBAG) distribution formula with no county receiving less than $750,000. Sonoma County will receive $1,447,000 for this 4 year round. Funds have been available to jurisdictions previously through the region wide competitive Station Area Planning program that was administered by MTC. The plans listed below were funded through this program (with the exception of Cotati that funded its specific area plan including the station area through other sources). Communities that are not SMART station sites or PDAs have not been eligible for this funding.

In 2012, MTC passed Resolution 4035 that shifted administration of the program in Sonoma County to the SCTA thus establishing SCTA as the responsible agency for approving grants that are aligned with the recommendations and priorities identified in the adopted PDA Growth and Investment Strategy; as well as to the PDA Planning Program guidelines.

SCTA is able to fund plans that are relevant to the PDA planning process. The PDA Investment and Growth Strategy identifies twelve (12) Priority Development Areas (PDAs), six (6) Rural Community Investment Areas and one (1) Employment Investment Area which vary significantly across the county.

PDA or Investment Area Planning Status

Specific/RD/ Other Area Plan Adopted Plan In Process

Cloverdale-Downtown/SMART Transit Area √

Cotati-Downtown and Cotati Depot √ Petaluma-Central √ Rohnert Park-Central Rohnert Park √ Rohnert Park-Sonoma Mtn. Village Santa Rosa-Downtown Station Area √ Santa Rosa-Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor √

27

PDA or Investment Area continued

Specific/RD/ Other Area Plan Adopted Plan in process

Santa Rosa-North Santa Rosa Station √ Santa Rosa-Roseland Santa Rosa-Sebastopol Road Corridor √ Sebastopol Core Area Windsor-Redevelopment Area √ Rural Investment Areas/Employment Centers

Sonoma County - Forestville RCIA Sonoma County - Graton RCIA Sonoma County - Guerneville RCIA Sonoma County - Larkfield RCIA Sonoma County - Penngrove RCIA Sonoma County - The Springs RCIA Sonoma County - Airport Business Park Employment Center

Funding source and eligibility requirements Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds are the funding source for this program. Given

the broad range of unfunded planning needs and mandates at the local level, it is important to clarifythe limitations on how federal STP funds may be applied to a subset of these needs consistent withResolution 4035.

The overall purpose of STP funds is to support investments in the surface transportation system; therefore, a nexus to transportation is required.

Eligible Planning activities that support transportation objectives include:

• Planning for mixed income near transit: increasing affordability with location efficiency • Station Area/PDA Planning (i.e. Specific or Precise Plan with EIR) • Transit and employment • Transit corridors and TOD • Families and TOD: Complete Communities • Expanding housing opportunities near transit • Parking management and pricing connected to new land uses • Bicycle and pedestrian planning connected to new land uses

Examples of Ineligible Planning Activities Planning activities that do not support the surface transportation system are not eligible. For example,

the update of a general plan housing element or an EIR to assess the impacts of a particular housing/commercial development may not be eligible unless land-use planning is specifically related totransportation investments. Other ineligible planning examples include CEQA clearance for single development entitlements, planning department staffing / consultant costs to provide general planning(development plans and review, general plan updates without a transportation focus) and permitting functions.

28

Call for Projects: SCTA issued a call for projects/solicitation of interest based on the Station Area Plan predecessor, but

a

r

:

now expanded to include Rural Investment Areas and Employment Centers as identified in the SonomCounty PDA Investment and Growth Strategy. Three applications were received and reviewed by the Planning Advisory Committee.

• Sonoma County for the Sonoma Springs Area Plan, requesting $450,000

• Sonoma County for the Airport Employment Center, requesting $350,000

• City of Santa Rosa for the Roseland/Sebastopol Road PDAs, requesting $647,000

PDA Planning is consistent with the SCTA Goals identified in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.

Policy Impacts:

The SCTA has been allocated $1,447,000 to fund PDA Planning. All elements of plans must meet federal funding requirements including the 11.47% local match. Project sponsors will interact directly with Caltrans to access funds. Any remaining funds will be held for a second round of projects at a latedate.

Fiscal Impacts:

The Planning Advisory Committee and SCTA staff recommends approval of all three proposed projects


• Sonoma County for the Sonoma Springs Area Plan, $450,000

• Sonoma County for the Airport Employment Center, $350,000

• City of Santa Rosa for the Roseland/Sebastopol Road PDAs, $647,000

29

1

PLANNING PROGRAM for Priority Development Areas, Rural Investment Areas, and Employment Investment Areas

Application for Funding Part 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION

a. Lead Applicant (City/County) County of Sonoma

b.

Contact information (email/phone): [email protected], 707-565-7389

Partner Transit Agency Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

Contact information (email/phone): [email protected], 707-794-3323

Name of PDA or Station Area Airport Employment Investment Area

Size of Planning Area (in acres) 591

PDA-Identified Place-type(s)* Employment Investment Area

Other Transit Agencies Serving Planning Area Sonoma County Transit

Local Stakeholder and Community Partners (attach letters Board of Supervisors, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail

of support if applicable) Transit District

h. Total Project Budget $400,000

i. Total Grant Request $350,000

j. Local Match – no less than 11.47% of total project budget $50,000

k. Source of Local Matching Funds In kind staff hours paid by General Fund

Part 2 - TYPE OF PLANNING ACTIVITY (check all that apply)

a. Specific Plan Precise Plan Precise Plan

Zoning Amendment Form-Based Code Form-Based Code

Program-Level Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

Other (describe in narrative below)

b. Anticipated Start Date: Spring, 2014 c. Anticipated End Date: Spring, 2016

Part 3 – PLACE TYPE INFORMATION PDA, Rural Investment Area, Employment Investment area CURRENT CONDITIONS* FUTURE GOAL a. Types of Zoning in including Commercial, Industrial, Public/Quisi- No significant changes or increases dwelling units/acre Public, and Agricultural in residential development. b. Total Population (Best Estimate) NA NA c. Total Households (Best Estimate) 10 10 d. Total Jobs (Best Estimate) +/- 5,000 17,000 e. Available Transit Service(s) Sonoma County Transit Sonoma County Transit, SMART

* Please provide source for current conditions

30

2

n.

hy

Part 4 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Yes No a. Is the request for this planning grant to augment an existing planning effort that is already partially funded? b. If you answered yes to (a), has a consultant already been hired to assist in the development of the plan? c. If a new transit station is proposed within the planning area, is it currently recognized in the General Plan? d. Have other plans (any targeted planning efforts including specific plans, precise plans, area plans, concept plans) been developed within the last 10 years that cover the project area? Note: If yes, please attach list of individual planning efforts and date completed e. Will the plan be formally adopted by the City Council or Board of Supervisors? f. If applicable, does the property owned by the transit agency represent part of the development potential for the project area/transit station? g. Does your jurisdiction have any open/uncompleted Station Area Planning grants funded through the FOCUS Program? If yes, indicate when the grant/planning process(es) will be complete. If the date is after January 2014, please describe available staff capacity to manage any new planning grants in the Narrative in Part 5.

Completion date:

Part 5 –NARRATIVE Attach a no more than FOUR page (8½ x 11 paper – single spaced, 12 pt. font) narrative to your proposal that addresses all of the following questions and provides any other relevant informatio 1. Introduction/Vision

What is the vision for the PDA, RIA or EIA?

What type of plan or study will be developed and why (e.g. specific plan, precise plan)? Will the

planning process include a project-level or programmatic EIR and/or revisions and updates to

zoning codes, etc.?

If specific plans or other similar plans have been prepared for the planning area in the past, explain

reason for updating plans and how the previous plan was implemented. (Please attach a list of all

planning efforts and documents that have been developed for any portions of the project area within the

last 10 years. Include dates completed).

2. Existing Policies

Describe any existing local policies that are already in place that will help provide additional

housing and transportation choices in the station area, such as innovative parking policies,

pedestrian-oriented design standards, or affordable housing policies, etc.

3. Proposed Planning Elements

Briefly describe your strategic approach to addressing each of the planning elements in Part 6.

Include any relevant issues or current conditions in your community related to each element, w

31

3

they are important, and how they may factor into the planning process. Note why any elements

would not be included in the plan based on existing plans and policies as a result of a

completed or amended precise or specific plan within the past 10 years.

4. Project Readiness/Local Commitment to the Plan and Implementation

Describe the level of developer interest in this area, including applicable permit activity. If low,

describe how the plan could facilitate interest.

Are there any major property owners (owning > 20% of property in planning area) or key

opportunity sites in the planning area and will they be part of the planning process? (If so, note

specific sites and/or stakeholders and the properties they own).

Describe the city’s commitment to ensure completion and adoption of the plan, such as by

providing adequate staffing and financial resources.

How will your jurisdiction ensure that policies established in the plan are supported and enacted?

Will your jurisdiction be adopting an EIR, new zoning and any related general plan amendments?

Describe any support for the project or relevant policies that the Planning Commission and/or City

Council have shown to date.

Part 6 – PLANNING ELEMENTS (SEE APPENDIX 1 FOR DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EACH ELEMENT)

To be included in plan? Yes No 1. PDA, RIA or EIA Profile

Description: Brief initial report detailing demographic and socio-economic characteristics of

the station area, as well as transit/travel patterns and use, etc.Data sources should include

the US Census, as well as other planning efforts. Results from the PDA Profile should

inform the PDA Elements listed below.

REQUIRED

2. Community Involvement Strategy

Description: An outline describing the outreach strategy used in the plan, including all REQUIRED

public meetings, notices, charettes, and other outreach tools for the plan, with special

attention paid to effective methods towards involving community groups and minority, low-

income, youth, renter, and non-English speaking populations.

32

4

3. Alternatives Analysis

Description: Development of several land use alternatives or visions over the long term,

their impacts upon the existing community and neighboring land uses, the feasibility of

instituting each alternative, and the selection of a preferred development scenario. Should

include analysis of potentially incompatible land uses and resulting exposure issues.

4. Market Demand Analysis

Description: An analysis of the future market demand for higher density-housing at all

levels of affordability, retail, commercial and industrial (if appropriate) uses.

5. Affordable Housing Strategy

Description: An analysis of existing housing stock and policies and how well they provide a

range of housing choices, both in type and affordability. Strategies (including land use

policies, other policies and programs) to meet affordable housing goals, provide housing

affordable to low-income residents and prevent displacement of existing residents due to

implementation of the plan should be analyzed.

6. Multi-modal Access & Connectivity

Description: Strategies for improving bus access to rail stations and ferry terminals and

frequency of feeder services (in consultation with transit providers) as well as pedestrian,

bicycle and auto access and safety. Multi-modal connections between the transit stations

and surrounding neighborhoods should be emphasized.

7. Pedestrian-Friendly Design Standards

Description: Building, open space and street design standards that focus on pedestrian-

oriented design that enhances the walking environment and increases pedestrian comfort

and convenience as well as the safety and security of transit patrons in and around the

station area.

8. Accessible Design

Description: Accessible design for people with disabilities and the elderly that ensures fully

accessible transit stations, accessible paths of travel between the stations and surrounding

areas, and visitable and habitable housing units adjacent to the station(s) where feasible.

9. Parking Analysis

Description: An analysis of existing and future parking demand/

policy and management element that aims at reducing parking d

pricing, zoning, and support for alternative modes.

supply to create a parking

emand/supply through

33

5

10. Infrastructure Development & Budget

Description: An analysis of current and future public infrastructure needed in the planning

area (including schools, libraries, parks, sewers and other facilities) to serve the existing

and future needs of the anticipated population. Financing strategies should propose

specific mechanisms to fund necessary improvements, expansions, and maintenance of

existing services.

11. Implementation Plan & Financing Strategy

Description: A list of measurable actions detailed in plan, and estimated timeline for their

implementation, including adoption of new policies, phasing of new infrastructure and

public developments, creation of new programs and, identification of near and longer-term

priorities.

REQUIRED

Part 7 – MAP OF PLANNING AREA Attach a map showing the proposed planning area that includes at least a half mile radius around any transit station in the area, as well as any other relevant information for land uses, station location etc. Photos of current conditions in the planning area are optional. All images must be in PDF form and should not exceed 5 mb combined.

34

SCTA PDA Application Part 5 Narrative Airport Employment Center

1. Introduction/Vision

This application is a formal requ est for PDA Grant Funds in the amount of $350,000 for

development of an Airport Station Area/Specific Plan (“Plan”), in coord ination with the SonomaMarin Area Rail Transit (SMART) in the unincorporated Airport Industrial area. This f unding willbe used to update the 1984 Airpo rt Industrial Area Specific Plan in order to tra nsform theoutdated car-centric land use model into a tra nsit oriented employment center with the newSMART station as the central component. This project will i nclude working closely with SMART,local transit agencies, and the Transportation and Public Works Department. A programmat icEnvironmental Impact Report will be prepared to analyze potential environmental impacts of thePlan and to streamline future development consistent with the Plan. Employment Investment Area Profile The designated Airport Industrial Employment Investment Area (EIA) is lo cated between thecities of Santa Rosa and Windsor and is a major sub-regional employment center with multi-modal opportunities including the Sonoma County Airport, Highway 101, SMART corridor with aplanned rail station an d existing f ixed railway, and existing and pro posed bike/pedestriannetwork linking to Windsor, Santa Rosa and the unincorporated community of Larkfield. The EIA includes approximately 600 acres of commercial and industrially zoned land, with only10 housing units. Reports from the US Census Local Employment Dynamics website indicatethat in 2010 there were approximately 5,000 jo bs within this area – primarily office, industrial,manufacturing, public facilities, institutional, food and wine processing and warehousing, withsome accessory retail, food and entertainment uses. The area contains 150-200 acres of vacantor underdeveloped land with appropriate zoning for increased b usiness and industrialdevelopment. The area as a whole has the potential to provide 12,000 jobs by 2040. Vision Unlike most Priority De velopment Areas, which primarily f ocus on ho using opportunities, thisarea was designated b y ABAG as an “Employment Investment Area.” Housing will not be th emain objective of the Plan. The pri mary focus of the Plan will be to maximize tran sportationconnections to the proposed SMART station via bus, bicycle, and p edestrian modes. Theseconnections will be or iented to the existing and future businesses within a half mile radius fromthe SMART station targeting the area’s employees providing alternatives to single occupancyvehicles. Other components of the Plan will in clude increasing amenities and services, creatingopen spaces that encourage physical activity, establish ing urban design standard s to enhancethe visual experience along Airport Boulevard, and creating a regulatory framework tha tencourages a diversity of industrial and commerci al uses. Changes to existing land uses andzoning are not anticipated, although there may be changes to standards and regulations withinthe existing Airport Industrial Specific Plan. Further defining a vision for this project will require input from a variety of stakeholders,including community members, business owners, landowners, and elected officials. This project has great potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled c ountywide by providingalternative travel modes. The SMART corridor wi ll provide an important connection for residentsliving near any of the SMART rail stations a long the 70 mile rail corridor and the AirportIndustrial area. Other l ocal planning efforts include constructing an adjacent Class I bike path

35

2

(SMART Multiple Use Trail) and t he Class I Mark West Creek Trail which will p rovide bike

,

,

f r

l

r

l

r

commuting options for Airport Industrial Area employees as well as recreation opportunities.

2. Existing Policies The County is intere sted in the identificat ion and promotion of su stainable and healthydevelopment practices that will lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emission and air pollutionpromote shorter commutes, reduce fossil fu el consumption, and provide f or walkablecommunities and safe bicycle routes. The Airport Industrial Area is the ideal area to realizemany of the long standing goals and policies. Such existing policy documents relevant to thisproject include:

Sonoma County General Plan (GP 2020), 2008 Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan, 1984 Sonoma County Zoning Code (Chapter 26), as amended Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2010 (including Complete Streets Resolution)

The following specific General Plan policies are most relevant to this planning effort:

Goal CT-2: Increase the opportunities, where appropriate, for transit systemspedestrians, bicycling and other alternative modes to reduce the demand for automobiletravel. Policy CT-1d: Work with Cities to provide jobs, housing, shopping, and coordination olocal transit along the SMART passenger rail corridor in order to reduce the need foautomobile travel to and from work and shopping centers.

Policy CT-1e Support development, implementation, and operation of a passenger raisystem and contiguous north south pedestrian and bicycle path along the SMARTpassenger rail corridor including the funding necessary to support a multi-modal feedesystem.

Policy CT-7n: Work with SMART to provide funding for development of a passenger raistation at the Airport Industrial Area.

The project will build off other local and regional transportation projects and will integrate withthe Regional Climate Protection Agency and other regional traffic, air quality and climate changeinitiatives. The following key impro vements have either occurred or will occur withi n the neafuture within the Airport Industrial Area:

Highway 101/Airport Boulevard Interchange, 2014 Brickway Boulevard Extension to Laughlin Road, 2017 Sonoma County Airport Master Plan, 2012 SMART Operations and Maintaince Facility planned adjacent to SMART Station Site Airport Boulevard Widening, TBD Mark West Creek Trail- Class I Bikeway, TBD


As previously mentioned, we will rel y on stakeholder input to fully define the elements of theplanning efforts. At a minimum, the Plan will include the following areas of analysis:

36

3

Multi-modal Access an d Connectivity: Providing access to SMART, b us transit, bicycle and

pedestrian facilities is the key focus of the Plan. This component of the Plan wil l help informstaff of viable policies and programs that will connect local employees with their homes, goods,and services in the most efficient manner possible. Community Involvement Strategy: The level to which we can involve the local co mmunity willdetermine, in large part, our success in creating and implementing the Plan. Because this areahas very few actual residents, our outreach strategy will focus on the existing Airport businesscommunity. We will rely on recent community connections that were formed throug h the 2012update of the Airport Master Plan. Parking Analysis: An analysis of existing and future automobile parking will be necessary,despite the Plan’s focus on alternative transportation. Th is component will also in clude reviewof the need for electric vehicle charging stations and car-share programs. Infrastructure Planning: Specific inf rastructure improvements will be further identifi ed as theArea Plan is developed. Howeve r, anticipated project n eeds will in clude funding for transi tstops, sidewalk widening, street landscaping and lighting, street furnishings, restriping, signage,pavement markings, undergrounding of utiliti es, and intersection b ulb-outs. These types ofprojects are typically funded through a combination of various Federal, State, and Local fundssources.

4. Project Readiness/Local Commitment to the Plan and Implementation Sonoma County PRMD will be directly responsible for the project management and oversight of the plan update and has an experienced and capable team to facilitate this project. This project and its ongoing implementation will be part of the County’s long range planning work plan. The Board of Supervisors has adopted the attached Resolution dated November 12, 2013 authorizing this grant application, including a local match from the Sonoma County General Fund. Both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors have long expressed the need for a SMART station at this major employment center, as noted in Policy CT-7n above. Through our proposed community engagement strategy, which includes reaching out to the area’s large land holders, the plan will enjoy full support. The Airport Industrial Area has two prominent land owners, the Airport Business Center and the Westwind Business Park, both of which own key opportunity sites within the EIA and along the Airport Boulevard corridor. As with most master planning level projects, financing will be a challenge, but the County is committed to seeking all funding available to support the Plan and its implementation.

37

County of Sonoma State of California

=m;--

THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT IS A CORRECT COpy OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE

ATIEST: NOV 1 2 20i3 VERONICA A. FER USO ,Clerk/Secretary

Item Number: 40 ------------------Date: November 12, 2013 Resolution Number: 13-0467 ------------------

n 4/5 Vote Required

Resolution Of The Board of Supervisors Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California Approving and Certifying the Permit and Resource Management Department's filing of applications for "Priority Development Area" Grant Funding From the Sonoma County Transportation Authority

Whereas, Senate Bill 375, known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of

2008, defines implementation requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles through better coordination between transportation and land use planning; and

Whereas, the Association of Bay Area Governments adopted the Sustainable Communities Strategy which designates Priority Development Areas, Rural Investment Areas, and Employment Investment Centers within Sonoma County where increased densities of housing and transit opportunities exist with a goal of integrating land use and transportation activities in order to reduce automobile travel and greenhouse gas emissions; and

Whereas, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission adopted the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program by Resolution 4035 on May 17, 2012 providing guidance for the allocation of federal transportation funds, in line with the Sustainable Communities Strategy, to the Sonoma County Transportation Authority; and

Whereas, the Springs Area of Sonoma Valley was designated as a Rural Investment Area," the Airport Industrial Area as a "Employment Investment Center," and the Roseland area a "Priority Development Area" within the Sustainable Communities Strategy; and

Whereas, the grant funds would enable the development of a Sonoma Springs Area Plan, with the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act analysis, to accomplish the following goals: 1) guide development of the Sonoma Springs area resulting in a more complete and compact community with a mix of residential and non-residential infill development; 2) facilitate an increase in bicycle/pedestrian paths and transit opportunities to link residential areas to jobs; and 3) evaluate automobile parking needs for residential and commercial uses, in the context of transit oriented development; and

Whereas, the grant funds would enable the development of an Airport Station Area/Specific 38

Resolution #13-0467 Date: November 12, 2013 Page 2

Plan to evaluate multi-model transportation opportunities within the Airport Industrial Area, working collaboratively with the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, to identify sites for a train station, support facilities, and possible funding mechanisms; and

Whereas, the grant funds would enrich current planning efforts to create a more transit oriented community with both housing and job opportunities within the Roseland Priority Development Area, in cooperation with the City of Santa Rosa; and

Whereas, that the Board of Supervisors designates the Clerk of the Board as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision herein is based. These documents may be found at the office of the Clerk of the Board, 575 Administration Drive, Room 100-A, Santa Rosa, California 95403.

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors:

1. Approves the filing of applications for Priority Development Area Grant funds for the

planning efforts within the Sonoma Springs Area, Airport Industrial/Employment Area,

and the Roseland Area, with appropriate environmental analyses.

2. Appoints the Director of the Sonoma County Permit and Resources Management

Department or his/her designee, as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and

submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, payment

requests, and so on, which may be necessary for the completion ofthe aforementioned

projects.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, of the County of Sonoma, on this 12 day of November, 2013 on the following vote:

Supervisors:

Gorin: Aye Zane: Absent McGuire: Aye Carrillo: Aye Rabbitt: Absent

Ayes: 3 Noes: 0 Absent: 2 Abstain: 0

So Ordered.

39

Judy Arnold, Chair Marin County Board of Supervisors

Barbara Pahre, Vice Chair Golden Gate Bridge, Highway/Transportation Distri ct

Jim Eddie Golden Gate Bridge, Highway/Transportation District

Debora Fudge Sonoma County Mayors and Councilmembers Association

Eric Lucan Transportation Authority of Marin

Jake Mackenzie Sonoma Mayors and Council members Association

Stephanie Moulton-Peters Marin Council of Mayors and Councilmembers

Gary Phillips Transportation Authority of Marin

David Rabbitt Sonoma County Board of Supervisors

Carol Russell Sonoma Mayors and Councilmembers Association

Kathrin Sears Marin County Board of Supervisors

Shirlee Zane Sonoma County Board of Supervisors

Farhad Mansourian

General Manager

5401 Old Redwood Highway Suite 200 Petaluma, CA 94954 Phone: 707-794-3330 Fax: 707-794-3037 www.sonomamarintrain .org

Suzanne Smith

Executive Director Sonoma County Transportation Agency

490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206 Santa Rosa, CA 95401

Dear Suzanne,

The Sonoma-Marin Rail Transit District (SMART) supports Sonoma County's application for funding for a Station Area/Specific Plan in the vicinity of SMART's newly planned Airport Blvd . Station.

The area near the new SMART Station and the Charles Schultz Airport is a significant job center in Sonoma County. Within one mile of the Airport Blvd Station site there were over 6,000 jobs in 2011. Moreover, the airport itself is an important local destination . Improving transportation access to and from the Airport area and better linking it to both the SMART service could be hugely beneficial to both SMART and Sonoma County.

The majority of jurisdictions along the SMART corridor have engaged in a similar planning process to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the coming rail transit system. SMART has worked collaboratively with those communities and plans to work collaboratively with Sonoma County on their Station Area/Specific Plan as well to ensure that strong connections to the station are developed in addition to land uses that will support ridership at the station

Sincerely,

John Nemeth

Planning Manager Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District 5401 Old Redwood Highway

Petaluma, CA 94954

40

£¤101

AIRPORT BLVD

FULT

ON

RD

BR

ICK

WAY

SMART Rail Trail (NW

P)

SK

YLA

NE BLVD

MARK WEST CREEK TRAIL

OLD REDWOOD HW

Y

LARKFIELD - WIKIUP TRAIL

Town of WindsorTown of Windsor

Airport Blvd

Fulto

n R

d

Sky

lane

Blv

d

Old Redwood HwySONOMA COUNTY

AIRPORT EMPLOYMENT INVESTMENT AREA

OCTOBER 2013

0 800400 Feet Ü

Employment Investment Areas

Airport Industrial Specific Plan

Class I Bikeway

Class II Bikeway

Class III Bikeway

Half-mile Radius of SMART Station

Potential SMART Station

Future SMART Maintenance Facility

Land Use ClassificationLand Intensive Agriculture

General Commercial

Limited Commercial

General Industrial

Limited Industrial

Public / Quasi-Public

Map Legend

41

1

Part 3 – PLACE TYPE INFORMATION PDA, Rural Investment Area, Employment Investment area

CURRENT CONDITIONS* FUTURE GOAL a. Types of Zoning indwelli ng units/acre

including 1 to 10 DU/AC 6 to 20 DU/AC

b. Total Population (Best Estimate) 1,578 3,000+ c. Total Households (Best Estimate) 451 housi ng units 700 d. Total Jobs (Best Estimate) 277 500 e. Available Transit Service(s) Sonoma County Transit Sonoma County Transit

* Please provide source for current conditions



a. Lead Applicant (City/County)

Contact information (email/phone):

County of Sonoma

[email protected], 707-565-7389

b. Partner Transit Agency


NA

c. Name of PDA or Station Area The Springs, Sonoma Valley

d. Size of Planning Area (in acres) 159 acres

e. PDA-Identified Place-type(s)* Rural Community Investment Area

f. Other Transit Agencies Serving Planning Area Sonoma County Transit

g. Local Stakeholder and Community Partners (attach letters

of support if applicable)

Board of Supervisors




k. Source of Local Matching Funds In kind staff hours paid by General Fund


a. Specific Plan Precise Plan Precise Plan

Zoning Amendment Form-Based Code Form-Based Code

Program-Level Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

Other (describe in narrative below)

b. Anticipated Start Date: April, 2014 c. Anticipated End Date: April, 2016

42

.

.

Part 4 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Yes No

a. Is the request for this planning grant to augment an existing planning effort that is already partially funded?

b. If you answered yes to (a), has a consultant already been hired to assist in the development of the plan?

c. If a new transit station is proposed within the planning area, is it currently recognized in the General Plan?

d. Have other plans (any targeted planning efforts including specific plans, precise plans, area plans, concept plans) been developed within the last 10 years that cover the project area? Note: If yes, please attach list of individual planning efforts and date completed

e. Will the plan be formally adopted by the City Council or Board of Supervisors? f. If applicable, does the property owned by the transit agency represent part of the development potential for the project area/transit station?

g. Does your jurisdiction have any open/uncompleted Station Area Planning grants funded through the FOCUS Program? If yes, indicate when the grant/planning process(es) will be complete. If the date is after January 2014, please describe available staff capacity to manage any new planning grants in the Narrative in Part 5.

Completion date:

Part 5 –NARRATIVE

Attach a no more than FOUR page (8½ x 11 paper – single spaced, 12 pt. font) narrative to yourproposal that addresses all of the following questions and provides any other relevant information


What is the vision for the PDA, RIA or EIA?

What type of plan or study will be developed and why (e.g. specific plan, precise plan)? Will the


zoning codes, etc.?






Describe any existing local policies that are already in place that will help provide additional




Briefly describe your strategic approach to addressing each of the planning elements in Part 6

Include any relevant issues or current conditions in your community related to each element, why

2

43

3

y





Describe the level of developer interest in this area, including applicable permit activity. If low,


Are there any major property owners (owning > 20% of property in planning area) or key



Describe the city’s commitment to ensure completion and adoption of the plan, such as by


How will your jurisdiction ensure that policies established in the plan are supported and enacted?


Describe any support for the project or relevant policies that the Planning Commission and/or Cit



To be included in plan? Yes No

1. PDA, RIA or EIA Profile





REQUIRED


Description: An outline describing the outreach strategy used in the plan, including all




REQUIRED

44

4








levels of affordability, retail, commercial and industrial (if appropriate) uses.
















station area.





9. Parking Analysis

Description: An analysis of existing and future parking demand/supply to create a parking

policy and management element that aims at reducing parking demand/supply through


45

5






existing services.





priorities.

REQUIRED

Part 7 – MAP OF PLANNING AREA Attach a map showing the proposed planning area that includes at least a half mile radius around any transit stationin the area, as well as any other relevant information for land uses, station location etc. Photos of current conditionsin the planning area are optional. All images must be in PDF form and should not exceed 5 mb combined.

46

SCTA PDA Application Part 5 Narrative Springs Rural Community Investment Area


An SCTA grant in the amount of $450,000 is requested for the development of a Sonoma Springs Area Plan (the “Plan”) with a broad objective to revitalize the area into a pedestrian and

l

l

transit oriented mixed use corridor. Specific goals include: 1) realigning land uses to create greater mixed use and higher intensity residential development around new transportation opportunities; 2) facilitating an increase in bicycle/pedestrian paths and other alternative transportation options; and 3) evaluating automobile parking needs for residential and commercial uses, in the context of transit oriented development. A programmatic EnvironmentaImpact Report will be prepared to analyze potential environmental impacts of the Plan and to streamline future development consistent with the Plan.

Rural Investment Area Profile

The Sonoma Springs area is a designated Rural Investment Area (RIA). The RIA includes the communities of Boyes Hot Springs, Fetters Hot Springs, El Verano, and Agua Caliente. These communities are a contiguous urbanized area located along the Scenic Highway 12 Corridor immediately northwest of the City of Sonoma. The core of these communities is served by public sewer and water, and contains a mixture of residential, office, and retail uses.

The Springs RIA area is approximately 160 acres and contains 451 housing units. Reports fromthe US Census Local Employment Dynamics website indicate that in 2010 there were 430 employed residents within the RIA and contained 277 jobs. The area has infill potential for up toan additional approximately 250 units through the Year 2040. With a 2% job growth rate the area could gain another 200+ jobs. The area is ethnically diverse and located within a former redevelopment area in the heart of the Sonoma Valley wine grape production area. Job opportunities in the area include retail and service sector jobs in the City of Sonoma, and agricultural and winery related jobs in the greater Sonoma Valley.

Vision

The Springs has developed over time without benefit of a cohesive planning process. The initiavision for the Plan is to create a land use model that promotes mixed use development with a variety of affordable housing opportunities, increases access to alternative transportation modesincluding safe pedestrian and bicycle routes, addresses automobile parking needs for residentsand area visitors, and enhances the community identity of the Springs area. The Springs Area isan MTC identified “Community of Concern”.

The RIA is part of the former Springs Redevelopment Area that has since been dissolved. The Plan will include an assessment of the planning goals contained within the former Redevelopment Plan. The project will include changes to land use and zoning to, at a minimum, increase residential densities and provide for a greater diversity of uses. A public engagement process will be necessary to fully define the vision and elements of the Plan.


The goals of the Sonoma County General Plan Land Use Element align with ABAG’s program to promote planning for “complete communities” that have a variety of homes, jobs, shops, services and amenities; that encourage accessibility by walking, biking, taking transit, and reducing commute times; and that improve social and economic equity.

47

2

The planning policy documents relevant to the Springs area include the following:

Sonoma County General Plan (GP 2020), 2008 Sonoma County Zoning Code (Chapter 26), as amended Highway 12 Design Guidelines, 1994 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2010 (including Complete Streets Resolution) South Sonoma Areas I and II, 1975 (slated to be repealed) Springs Redevelopment Plan, 2008 (no longer in effect)

The project will take into account and integrate other planning initiatives and infrastructure projects. In the past five years plans, programs or activities in this area have included:

Partial completion of Highway 12 improvements providing bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and street lighting.

Planning for segments of the Central Sonoma Valley Trail Project constructed “Sonoma Springs Mixed Use Project,” MidPen Housing, PLP12-0038 (in process)


At a minimum, the Plan will include the following areas of analysis:

Community Involvement Strategy Springs area residents have become increasing more engaged in recent years, although the more active community groups may not represent the more underserved residents. To be successful, County staff will contract with a consultant specializing in public outreach in diverse communities, with an emphasis on broadening and supporting continued stakeholder involvement. Staff will also reach out to the City of Sonoma and service providers.

Affordable Housing Strategy According to the 2009 Sonoma County Housing Element, the larger Sonoma Valley Urban Service Area includes only 49 base affordable units, with the potential for 131. The Plan will strive to increase the number of potential units. Portions of the RIA will need to rezoned to add additional density. In particular the southern portion of the Plan area adjacent to the City of Sonoma was formally within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. This area will need to rezoned to increase densities consistent with the General Plan.

Multi-modal Access & Connectivity As previously mentioned, a major goal of this planning effort will be providing more access to transit and mobility. This will include a detailed review of the existing and planned bikeways andpedestrian facilities. A realistic assessment of potential funding for these improvements will be vital to long term implementation. An additional focus will be improving access and circulation for persons with disabilities.

Parking Analysis The Springs area is known to have many challenges relative to automobile parking. The Plan will include creating a balanced approach to parking regulations to attract investment while transforming the Highway 12 corridor from one that is mostly auto-oriented to one that also provides alternative modes such as transit and bicycle/pedestrian access. Additional review willalso be needed for residential parking requirements, especially as residential densities increaseand as incentives for higher density/affordable housing.

Infrastructure Development & Budget

48

3

Specific infrastructure improvements will be further identified as the Plan unfolds. However, anticipated project needs will include funding for transit stops, additional sidewalk construction, street landscaping and lighting, street furnishings, pavement markings, and undergrounding of utilities. These types of projects are typically funded through a combination of various Federal, State, and Local funds sources.


Sonoma County PRMD will be directly responsible for the project management and oversight ofthe plan update and has an experienced and capable team to facilitate this project. This projectand its ongoing implementation will be part of the County’s long range planning work plan. The Board of Supervisors has adopted the attached Resolution dated November 12, 2013 authorizing this grant application, including a local match from the Sonoma County General Fund.

Through our proposed community engagement strategy we believe the plan will enjoy full support, ensuring its enactment. Although there are no major property owners within the EIA, there are key opportunity sites including the MidPen mixed use affordable housing project, as previously mentioned. As with most master plans and area planning projects, financing will be achallenge, but the County is committed to seeking all funding available to support the Plan and its implementation.

49

County of SonomaState of California

THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT IS A CORRECT COpy OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE

ATIEST: NOV 1 2 20i3VERONICA A. FER USO ,Clerk/Secretary

Item Number: 40 -------------------

Date: November 12, 2013 Resolution Number: 13-0467 -----------------

n 4/5 Vote Required

BY'--=d,.J#.~r4!!Jb=m;--

Resolution Of The Board of Supervisors Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California Approving and Certifying the Permit and Resource Management Department's filing of applications for "Priority Development Area" Grant Funding From the Sonoma County Transportation Authority

Whereas, Senate Bill 375, known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of

2008, defines implementation requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles through better coordination between transportation and land use planning; and

Whereas, the Association of Bay Area Governments adopted the Sustainable Communities Strategy which designates Priority Development Areas, Rural Investment Areas, and Employment Investment Centers within Sonoma County where increased densities of housing and transit opportunities exist with a goal of integrating land use and transportation activities in order to reduce automobile travel and greenhouse gas emissions; and

Whereas, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission adopted the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program by Resolution 4035 on May 17, 2012 providing guidance for the allocation of federal transportation funds, in line with the Sustainable Communities Strategy, to the Sonoma County Transportation Authority; and

Whereas, the Springs Area of Sonoma Valley was designated as a Rural Investment Area," the Airport Industrial Area as a "Employment Investment Center," and the Roseland area a "Priority Development Area" within the Sustainable Communities Strategy; and

Whereas, the grant funds would enable the development of a Sonoma Springs Area Plan, with the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act analysis, to accomplish the following goals: 1) guide development of the Sonoma Springs area resulting in a more complete and compact community with a mix of residential and non-residential infill development; 2) facilitate an increase in bicycle/pedestrian paths and transit opportunities to link residential areas to jobs; and 3) evaluate automobile parking needs for residential and commercial uses, in the context of transit oriented development; and

Whereas, the grant funds would enable the development of an Airport Station Area/Specific 50

Resolution #13-0467 Date: November 12, 2013 Page 2

Plan to evaluate multi-model transportation opportunities within the Airport Industrial Area, working collaboratively with the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, to identify sites for a train station, support facilities, and possible funding mechanisms; and

Whereas, the grant funds would enrich current planning efforts to create a more transit oriented community with both housing and job opportunities within the Roseland Priority Development Area, in cooperation with the City of Santa Rosa; and

Whereas, that the Board of Supervisors designates the Clerk of the Board as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the

f

decision herein is based. These documents may be found at the office of the Clerk of the Board, 575 Administration Drive, Room 100-A, Santa Rosa, California 95403.

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors:

1. Approves the filing of applications for Priority Development Area Grant funds for the

planning efforts within the Sonoma Springs Area, Airport Industrial/Employment Area,

and the Roseland Area, with appropriate environmental analyses.

2. Appoints the Director of the Sonoma County Permit and Resources Management

Department or his/her designee, as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and

submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, payment

requests, and so on, which may be necessary for the completion ofthe aforementioned

projects.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, of the County of Sonoma, on this 12 day oNovember, 2013 on the following vote:

Supervisors:

Gorin: Aye Zane: Absent McGuire: Aye Carrillo: Aye Rabbitt: Absent

Ayes: 3 Noes: 0 Absent: 2 Abstain: 0

So Ordered.

51

ARNOLD DR

AGU

A C

ALIE

NTE

RD

Arnold Dr

Ü

?Ý

Rob

inso

nR

d

Donald St

E Verano Ave

Greger St

Sierra Dr

Cedar Ave

Manzanita Rd

Harley StWTh

omso

nAv

e

Acacia

Sun

nysi

de A

ve

Johnson Ave

HWY 12

VERANO AV

Ri ver s ide Dr

RAILROAD AV

ROBINSONRD

V AILE

TT

I DR

SONOMA CITY TRAIL

LAR

SEN

WSPAIN

ST

CEDAR AVE

MALEK RD DEPOT RD

RIVERSIDE DR

CENTRAL SONOMA VALLEY BIKEWAY

ENCI

NAS

LN

PALOU ST

HWY 12

CENTRAL SONOMA VALLEY BIKEWAY

City of Sonoma

Veran

o Ave

SONOMA COUNTY THE SPRINGS RURAL COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AREA

0 800400 Feet

Rural Investment Area

South Sonoma Valley Area I Area Plan

Class I Bikeway

Class II Bikeway

Class III Bikeway

Land Use Classification Urban Residential

General Commercial

Limited Commercial

Limited Commercial Traffic Sensitive

Public / Quasi-Public

Map Legend

OCTOBER 2013

52

1



a. Lead Applicant (City/County)


City of Santa Rosa

Lisa Kranz, [email protected], 707-543-3259

b. Partner Transit Agency


Santa Rosa CityBus

Rachel Ede, [email protected], 707-543-3337

c. Name of PDA or Station Area Roseland Area / Sebastopol Road

d. Size of Planning Area (in acres) 1,800 acres

e. PDA-Identified Place-type(s)* Transit Neighborhood (RA) / Mixed Use Corridor (SR)

f. Other Transit Agencies Serving Planning Area Sonoma County Transit

g. Local Stakeholder and Community Partners (attach letters

of support if applicable)

Sonoma County PRMD, Dept. of Health Services




k. Source of Local Matching Funds In-kind staff time


a. ⌧ Specific Plan � Precise Plan

⌧ Zoning Amendment � Form-Based Code

⌧ Program-Level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) �

� Other (describe in narrative below) �

b. Anticipated Start Date: April 2014 c. Anticipated End Date: April 2016

Part 3 – PLACE TYPE INFORMATION PDA, Rural Investment Area, Employment Investment area CURRENT CONDITIONS* FUTURE GOAL

a. Types of Zoning in including dwelling units/acre

10 du/ac (generalized from GP diagram)

12 du/ac

b. Total Population (Best Estimate) 8,900 (based on units and pers/hh) 16,250 (based on units and pers/hh) c. Total Households (Best Estimate) 3,600 (land use survey) 6,600 (vacant land by category) d. Total Jobs (Best Estimate) 4,300 (land use survey) 5,700 (vacant land by category) e. Available Transit Service(s) Santa Rosa CityBus / So. Co. Transit Expanded service by these providers * Please provide source for current conditions

53

2

.

Part 4 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Yes No

a. Is the request for this planning grant to augment an existing planning effort that is already partially funded?

� ⌧

b. If you answered yes to (a), has a consultant already been hired to assist in the development of the plan?

⌧

c. If a new transit station is proposed within the planning area, is it currently recognized in the General Plan?

� ⌧

d. Have other plans (any targeted planning efforts including specific plans, precise plans, area plans, concept plans) been developed within the last 10 years that cover the project area? Note: If yes, please attach list of individual planning efforts and date completed

� ⌧

e. Will the plan be formally adopted by the City Council or Board of Supervisors? ⌧ f. If applicable, does the property owned by the transit agency represent part of the development potential for the project area/transit station?

� ⌧

g. Does your jurisdiction have any open/uncompleted Station Area Planning grants funded through the FOCUS Program? If yes, indicate when the grant/planning process(es) will be complete. If the date is after January 2014, please describe available staff capacity to manage any new planning grants in the Narrative in Part 5.

� ⌧Completion date:

Part 5 –NARRATIVE

Attach a no more than FOUR page (8½ x 11 paper – single spaced, 12 pt. font) narrative to yourproposal that addresses all of the following questions and provides any other relevant information


• What is the vision for the PDA, RIA or EIA?

• What type of plan or study will be developed and why (e.g. specific plan, precise plan)? Will the


zoning codes, etc.?






• Describe any existing local policies that are already in place that will help provide additional




• Briefly describe your strategic approach to addressing each of the planning elements in Part 6.

Include any relevant issues or current conditions in your community related to each element, why

54





• Describe the level of developer interest in this area, including applicable permit activity. If low,


• Are there any major property owners (owning > 20% of property in planning area) or key



• Describe the city’s commitment to ensure completion and adoption of the plan, such as by


• How will your jurisdiction ensure that policies established in the plan are supported and enacted?


Describe any support for the project or relevant policies that the Planning Commission and/or City



To be included in plan?Yes No

1. PDA, RIA or EIA Profile





REQUIRED


Description: An outline describing the outreach strategy used in the plan, including all




REQUIRED

3

55

4






⌧ �



levels of affordability, retail, commercial and industrial (if appropriate) uses. ⌧ �







⌧ �






⌧ �





station area.

� ⌧





⌧ �

9. Parking Analysis

Description: An analysis of existing and future parking demand/supply to create a parking

policy and management element that aims at reducing parking demand/supply through


� ⌧

56






existing services.

⌧ �





priorities.

REQUIRED

Part 7 – MAP OF PLANNING AREA Attach a map showing the proposed planning area that includes at least a half mile radius around any transit stationin the area, as well as any other relevant information for land uses, station location etc. Photos of current conditionsin the planning area are optional. All images must be in PDF form and should not exceed 5 mb combined.

5

57

PROPOSED PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN ROSELAND AREA / SEBASTOPOL ROAD

VISION

The Roseland Area Priority Development Area (PDA) is located southwest of downtown Santa Rosa and is focused around the Southside Bus Transfer Center. Its main commercial hub is Sebastopol Road, which is part of the Sebastopol Road Mixed Use Corridor Priority Development Area. The proposed PDA plan boundary includes the Roseland Area PDA and part of the Sebastopol Road PDA, encompassing about 1,800 acres. This includes about 1,200 acres in incorporated Santa Rosa, mostly in the southern plan area, and about 600 acres of unincorporated lands, corresponding generally to what is known as the Roseland community. Including both PDA areas will allow for planning tooccur for the Roseland Area PDA within the context of Sebastopol Road, its major commercial corridor.

The plan area is more culturally diverse than Santa Rosa as a whole, and contains a variety of housing types and non-residential uses. Older and newer subdivisions exist side by side with multifamily housing throughout the area. Both retail and industrial uses are part of the fabric of the area.

Building on the diversity of uses and population, the plan area of the future is a neighborhood with a mix of housing types with proximate supportive retail uses. An extensive network for pedestrians and bicyclists is envisioned, with links to downtown, community destinations such as parks and schools, and the nearby rural countryside. Expanded, frequent transit service from the bus transfer center and local stops is key to connecting the area with the rest of Santa Rosa and beyond.

To realize this vision for the study area and to address and meet the goals of the Transit Neighborhood place type, the City of Santa Rosa proposes development of a specific plan.

Recognizing the value of land use consistency in both city and county areas to developersand staff, Sonoma County staff will also be engaged in the planning process. Cost sharingfor county staff time is anticipated.

A specific plan will allow the City to comprehensively address land use and transportation issues and develop an integrated plan which assesses infrastructure needs and costs andprovides an implementation guide. Concurrent rezoning and prezoning is also planned. The prezoning will establish zoning districts for unincorporated areas for use in any future annexation. A programmatic Environmental Impact Report would establish the baseline setting for the area and assess the impacts of the proposed plan and zoning.

Past plans. Planning efforts have occurred in the area, most notably the Southwest Area Plan, adopted by the city in 1994, and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, adopted in 2000. While the area plan has sunset, some of its most important policies are included in the General Plan. The redevelopment plan is no longer in effect due to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies.

Roseland, in the northern portion of the PDA, was the focus of a 2007 Community-Based Transportation Plan, and CityBus’s Route 19 service emerged from this plan, and it has

58

been funded in part by federal funds awarded to the city from MTC’s Lifeline Transportation Program. Both sides of Sebastopol Road between Stony Point Road and

Dutton Avenue were the subject of the 2007 Sebastopol Road Urban Vision Plan, which focuses on the Roseland Village Shopping Center site. Roseland is also currently the subject of a two year Community Transformation Grant administered by the Sonoma County Department of Health Services. This grant aims to increase residents’ access tohealthy and safe environments and local design professionals’ knowledge of healthy design principles.

EXISTING POLICIES

The Santa Rosa General Plan is the guiding document for growth and development in the

e

city. The plan provides strong policy guidance to ensure future growth is sensitive to bothbuilt and natural environments and which allows residents to access jobs, services, schools, and recreational facilities through a variety of travel modes.

Policies incorporated in the General Plan from the Southwest Area Plan include requiring neighborhoods to include a mix of residential housing types and neighborhood supportiveretail as well as developing attractive, safe, and extensive network for pedestrian and bicycle movement.

In addition, the City of Santa Rosa has adopted two specific plans focused on areas around future SMART stations which have provided invaluable experience in transit-oriented development policy and design standards as well as progressive parking policy. These planning processes will complement and inform a similar planning effort focused around the Southside Transfer Center.

PROPOSED PLANNING ELEMENTS

The proposed plan will include most of the Planning Elements outlined in the application materials. The following briefly describes how the Roseland Area PDA Plan will address these Planning Elements.

PDA Profile. The PDA encompasses a significant portion of the Roseland census tract identified as a 2011 “Communities of Concern” by MTC. According to MTC, 72% of this census tract’s residents are members of minority groups, and 54% are low-income. The plan will build on this information to create a profile about the population in the entire studyarea, including age, ethnicity, employment, income and poverty, travel mode to work, andvehicle availability. Information on existing land uses and vacant land will also be refined.This basic demographic and land use information will inform all other aspects of the plan.

Community Involvement Strategy. Community involvement will be a key component of theplan. Stakeholders will be identified and outreach methods customized to ensure maximum involvement. Community stakeholders include residents, business owners, property owners, transit agencies, neighborhood groups, and faith-based groups. A Community Involvement Plan will be developed as one of the first steps in the planning process to ensure significant public involvement in identifying issues and envisioning futurconditions in this area. Components of the Community Involvement Plan:

59

• Citizens’ Advisory Committee. Comprised of area residents, business owners, property owners, representatives of neighborhood groups, the CAC would provide

n

another mechanism for citizen involvement. This group will assist in engaging community members to participate in community workshops.

• Technical Advisory Committee. This group would include city staff from traffic engineering, transit, utilities, recreation and parks, housing, Sonoma County Planning, Sonoma County Community Development Commission, Sonoma MarinArea Rail Transit, Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Sonoma County Transit. It would advise on technical aspects of the plan.

• Community Workshops. Public meetings will be held at various stages of the planning process to introduce the project, vision a future, consider plan land usesand transportation network. It is anticipated that meeting announcements would utilize both English and Spanish and that simultaneous Spanish translation wouldoccur at the meetings.

• Reaching those who don’t normally participate. Strategies will be developed to involve lower income, non-English speaking persons, and young people in the planning process.

• Interactive website. A project website will be established to provide information othe project and community meetings, but also to allow community members to comment and provide input through a survey or other interactive means.

Alternatives Analysis. At least two land use and circulation alternatives will be prepared examining different future scenarios for the PDA. The scenarios would be developed utilizing smart growth principles and would provide for a mix of housing types, improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the bus transfer center, and support transit access and ridership.

The alternatives will be developed based on input from community workshops and meetings of the Citizens’ and Technical Advisory Committees as well as the data developed through the PDA profile and market study. A report describing and analyzing

e

the alternatives will be prepared to quantify development potential in terms of housing units, non-residential floor area, population and employment.

Market Demand Analysis. A market demand analysis will be conducted to assess futurmarket conditions for residential, commercial, and industrial development in the PDA, taking current conditions and long range potential into consideration. Projected absorption

It

of dwelling units and square footage by non-residential use will be included for the planning period.

The residential analysis will assess the future potential for housing of various types and atincreased densities, at all levels of affordability. It will consider the likelihood of households locating near and utilizing transit. The commercial analysis will assess trendsin retail, office, and industrial development in the area as well as future potential by type. The potential for employment in each of these areas shall be included.

Affordable Housing Strategy. The affordable housing strategy will aim to identify the needfor affordable housing in the plan area, analyze the financial feasibility of providing neededaffordable housing in the area, and set forth strategies for development of such housing.

60

will also address whether displacement of existing residents is an issue and how existing market rate yet affordable units will be preserved. Policies and strategies to minimize displacement will be included.

Multimodal Access and Connectivity. This plan component will focus on improving bicycle

r

o

.

x

d

and pedestrian connections to the Southside Transfer Center as well as enhancing transitservice and planning for connectivity to Santa Rosa’s future SMART stations. An assessment of pedestrian and bicycle circulation patterns and access to the transfer centewill be included. Safe and direct non-vehicular access will be addressed and areas for enhancement or direct connectivity will be identified. Access for the disabled will also be addressed.

Pedestrian Friendly Design Standards. Instead of creating area specific guidelines, the plan will rely on Santa Rosa’s Design Guidelines, which include a goal to create pleasing streetscapes which encourages pedestrian activity.

Accessible Design. The plan will include policies to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities. This will include transit facilities as well as paths of travel in the plan area. Additionally, policy shall address housing for persons with disabilities.

Parking Analysis. Because the area is significantly developed and major redevelopment isnot anticipated, no area specific parking analysis is planned. Consideration will be given tincluding the area in zoning with reduced parking already developed for other station plan areas.

Infrastructure Development and Budget. The plan area has significant infrastructure needs, including roads in poor condition, missing sidewalks, lack of modern water and sewer systems, lack of amenities such as parks and other public facilities, and poor vehicular access due to narrow and/or discontinuous roads. The plan will assess conditions of public infrastructure and public facilities and services to identify deficiencies and plan and develop cost estimates for improvements needed.

Implementation Plan and Financing Strategy. An implementation section will be included in the plan to identify actions and responsible entities to carry out the plan. Strategies to finance actions and improvements and general timeframes for completion will be included

PROJECT READINESS

While significant development interest has not been expressed in the area, there has beensignificant public interest in annexation, particularly in Roseland, the northern plan area where most of the plan’s unincorporated lands exist. As part of its 2012 goal setting, the Santa Rosa City Council directed development of a work plan to assess the costs to anneand provide city services to residents of this county island. Development of a Roseland Area PDA plan will assist in that effort by providing analysis of infrastructure conditions anneeds and outline the environmental setting in the area. It will provide a more fine-grainedapproach to land use and circulation planning for the area.

The city has a strong track record in transit-oriented planning and zoning and is committedto adoption of the plan, any general plan amendments, and consistent zoning.

61

BYAV

E

W HEARN AVE

WEST AVE

LAZZINI AVE

BURBANKAVE GIFFEN AVE

WILJ

ANCT

OCCIDENTAL RD

LEO DR

MOOR

LAND

AVE

TON

MEAD

O W

W 3RD ST

STON

Y PO

INT R

D DUTTONAVE

SEBASTOPOL RD

HEARN AVE

SANT

A RO

SA A V

E

COR

NORTHPOINT PKWY

101

Proposed Roseland Area Planning Boundary

|ÿ12

!

DO

YUBA DR

LUDWIG AVE

Legend ! Southside Transfer Center

Half Mile Buffer Proposed Plan BoundaryCity of Santa Rosa 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Unincorporated Lands

Created December 2013, by Mike Hargreaves, Information Technology \ GIS µ

BELLEVUE AVE

DUT

WDDR

CORB

YAV

E

£¤

5762

COUNTY OF SONOMA PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2829 (707) 565-1900 FAX (707) 565-1103

06 December 2013

Ms. Suzanne Smith Executive Director Sonoma County Transportation Authority 490 Mendocino Ave, Suite 206 Santa Rosa, California 95401

RE: ROSELAND PDA GRANT APPLICATION

Dear Ms. Smith:

Sonoma County PRMD welcomes and supports the City of Santa Rosa's application to SCTA for PDA Grant funds targeting planning efforts within the Roseland Priority Development Area. The proposal encompasses approximately 1,800 acres, 600 of which are currently unincorporated.

The City and County have a shared vision and look forward to engaging the community in a comprehensive planning effort to promote goals of the City and County General Plans and the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy. Our jurisdictions have partnered successfully, jointly adopting the 2007 Sebastopol Road Urban Vision Plan. The proposed Roseland Specific Plan will build on this past effort to create transportation connections and a mix of uses and services appropriate for this underserved community.

We look forward to creating a plan that respects Roseland's cultural diversity with the amenities the community deserves. Thank you for your time and attention to the matter. If you have any questions regarding PRMD's participation in this process, please contact me at (707) 565-1925 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Tennis Wick, AICP PRMD Director

Chairman David Rabbitt and Members of the Board of Supervisors Veronica Ferguson, Chief Administrative Officer Peter Rumble, Deputy County Administrator Rebecca Wachsberg, Administrative Analyst Jennifer Barrett, AICP, PRMD Assistant Director Amy Lyle, PRMD Planner III Chuck Regalia, AICP, Santa Rosa Community Development Department Director Lisa Kranz, AICP, Santa Rosa COD Supervising Planner

63

mailto:[email protected]


From: James Cameron, Deputy Director of Projects and Programming

Item: 4.6.2 – Highway - Adoption of the 2014 Highway 101 Corridor Landscaping& Tree Planting Plan


Shall the Board adopt the 2014 Highway 101 Corridor Landscaping & Tree Planting Plan?

Issue:

On May 13th, Supervisor Mike McGuire, the Chair of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA), formed the Highway 101 Corridor Ad Hoc Tree Committee, based on community concerns voiced at the March 14, 2013 public meeting. The SCTA Board Members appointed to the Ad Hoc committee include: Mike McGuire, David Rabbitt, Steve Allen, Sarah Gurney and Laurie Gallian. The Ad Hoc’s main objective - working collaboratively with Caltrans - was to develop a Highway 101 Corridor implementation plan for trees and landscaping by early 2014.

Background:

The Ad Hoc met on three occasions providing guidance to staff on the development of the implementation plan. Attached is the final draft of the 2014 Highway 101 Corridor Landscaping & Tree

w

l

Planting Plan for Board consideration.

The goal of the plan is to prioritize tree planting and landscaping in the Highway 101 corridor as a folloup to the highway widening projects, with emphasis on restoring view shed in a cost effective and expeditors manner.

To date there has been $4.052M expended on Highway 101 landscaping between Rohnert Park and northern Santa Rosa. This Plan proposes to more than double that amount by committing an additiona$4.791M in funding to implementation of full landscaping on the corridor. Additionally, the plan will provide up to $200,000 to local jurisdictions to advance tree planting on the corridor. With this fundingeach jurisdiction could be granted up to $50,000 to plant trees along the Highway 101 corridor prior to full landscaping. SCTA staff will continue to pursue funding sources for the remaining funding gap of approximately $13.5M to complete full landscaping.

Landscaping the Highway 101 corridor is in keeping with SCTA policy. The proposed plan shows SCTA’s commitment to landscaping the corridor and clarifies that both infrastructure and landscaping are a priority.

Policy Impacts:

State Transportation Improvement Program funding totaling $3.527M and Measure M Local Street Projects funds totaling $1.264M maximizes landscape delivery without impacting future Highway 101

infrastructure funding. The $200,000 in Measure M Highway 101 funds will reduce the cash flow to a

Fiscal Impacts:

64

balance of $1.589M in the second quarter of FY 17/18, thus maintaining the $1.5M minimum balance policy.

The Highway 101 Corridor Ad Hoc Tree Committee recommends the Board consider approving the proposed 2014 Highway 101 Corridor Landscaping & Tree Planting Plan for staff to use as a guide to implementing full landscaping from Windsor to the southern Sonoma County Line.

Ad hoc Recommendation:

65

Staff Report To: RCPA Board of Directors

From: Lauren Casey, Climate Protection Program Manager

Item: 4.7.1 – RCPA activities report


Information Only

Issue:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY: Background:

Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN): The RCPA serves as the Sonoma County lead for implementing programs through the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN), a collaboration of the nine counties of the Bay Area. BayREN implements effective energy saving programs on a regional level and draws on the expertise, experience, and proven track record of Bay Area local governments to develop and administer successful climate, resource, and sustainability programs. BayREN is funded by California utility ratepayers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

BayREN is implementing programs that help improve the energy efficiency of buildings in multiple sectors including single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial. BayREN is using a multi-pronged approach to encourage retrofit projects by providing outreach and education, technical assistance, rebates, financing, and trainings.

The following sections provide updates across the main BayREN programs:

Single Family Energy Upgrade California

The RCPA continues to work with the regional leads to conduct marketing, education, and outreach related to Energy Upgrade California™ Home Upgrade, a program through which homeowners can install a set of measures to improve the performance of their home as a system.

Key strategies implemented related to Home Upgrade in December include:

• Developing draft homeowner resource matrix to aid elected officials, city staff, contractors, and others in communicating about resources

• Co-hosting a specialty contractor workshop with the Energy Independence Program to recruit new contractors to participate in resource efficiency programs, held December 10th; 21 contractors attended the training.

• Developing materials for a homeowner workshop series. Home Upgrade project stats: Since launch in August, 64 Home Upgrade incentives have been reserved, 27 of which are for projects located in Sonoma County.

66

Multi-Family Energy Upgrade California

Outreach conducted by the RCPA in October and November regarding the Bay Area Multifamily Building Enhancements program reached hundreds of owners and managers of multifamily properties.

ve ng

n

e

ns on.

of n

To date 13 buildings have submitted interest forms to participate in the program. Three properties hareceived the free on-site energy consultation and recommendations provided by the program, includia total of 133 units. Only one project, of 12 units, has applied for the $750 per unit incentive to date.

Codes & Standards

BayREN sent materials to the RCPA to recruit a jurisdiction to participate in a series of code-compliance audits in 2014. Outreach to Chief Building Officials began at the beginning of January.

Financing

Efforts to expand the Pay As You Save (PAYS) Pilot with partner utilities continued. A program desigwas submitted to the City of Hayward and RFPs were issued to recruit program vendors and contractors. Implementation of the program will go before the Hayward City Council in January. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) approved a program concept and is pursuing internal funding to move forward with pilot implementation. A draft implementation plan for expansion to commercial customers will be provided to Town of Windsor utility staff in January.

CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING Climate Action 2020 Climate Action 2020 Community Public Outreach Open House workshops are almost complete. Thremeetings remain in January with City of Petaluma on January 7th, County of Sonoma on January 8th and City of Cloverdale on January 14th. All materials are posted on the website at www.sonomarcpa.org/climateaction under public participation.

Overall, attendance at the meetings was low, so staff is looking into other options for public engagement and input. This includes the creation of an online survey type questionnaire that community members can fill out and provide feedback on. Additionally, staff will be giving presentatiothroughout the County to any community groups or organizations that would like to have a presentati

The first meeting of the Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) is scheduled for January 22, 2013 at CitySanta Rosa Utilities Dept. 35 Stony Point Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95401. SAG members will receive aoverview of the GHG inventory, and the opportunity to provide input on candidate GHG reduction strategy measures.

None.

Policy Impacts:

None.

Fiscal Impacts:

Information Only.


67

https://owa.sonoma-county.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=qKx3paDcwEaaf__UgOmEht6iiNVi0dAI-Gs9y5tZujxaKooJ86ikjbNDTZTKqZA-i0g-nAMJSoY.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sonomarcpa.org%2fclimateaction�

Glossary of Acronyms

AB32 = Assembly Bill 32, Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)

ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments

AR5 = Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC)

ARB = Air Resources Board

BayREN = Bay Area Regional Energy Network

C&S = Codes and Standards (BayREN)

CCBA = Climate Corps Bay Area

CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission

EBMUD = East Bay Municipal Utility District

EPA = Environmental Protection Agency

GHG = greenhouse gas

GIS = Geographic Information Systems

HUA = Home Upgrade Advisor (BayREN)

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ME&O = marketing, education, and outreach

MFCAP = Multi Family Capital Advance Program

NCBE = North Coast Builders Exchange

PACE = Property Assessed Clean Energy

PAYS® = Pay As You Save

PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric

RCPA = Regional Climate Protection Authority

REACO = Redwood Empire Association of Code Officers

SCS = Sustainable Communities Strategy

SCEIP = Sonoma County Energy Independence Program

SCTA = Sonoma County Transportation Authority

SFLLR = Single Family Loan Loss Reserve

SFPUC = San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

68

1

One Day Clean Commute Overview and Implementation Plan Outline County of Sonoma, Energy and Sustainability Division September 2013

Mission: To motivate employees to choose clean commute options.

Goals: In October 2014, 20% of surveyed County of Sonoma employees will choose a clean commute an

a

average of at least once per week. By 2020, 30% of employees will choose a clean commute at an average of at least one day per week. (Note: In 2012, it is 16% and has been stagnant for a few years.)

Clean Commute Options include: Walking, Biking, Transit, Telecommuting, and Ridesharing (aka carpooling.)

One Day Program scope: Marketing, education, and outreach to inspire, motivate, and convince employees to shift their commute patterns away from driving alone and to a cleaner, more sustainable option. Through the use of a creative campaign, 75% of all County employees will receive messaging about this program.

The program will focus primarily on people who are good candidates for riding the bus, telecommuting,and/or ridesharing. These are people that typically live more than 10 miles from work. Secondarily, outreach will be to those people who can walk and bike as well; however, that segment of employees ismost likely not as high as those that can telecommute, carpool, or take transit.

Benefits of Clean Commuting include: Reduction in fuel costs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, developing friendships between carpoolers, ability to use commute time for reading or working (if usingtransit), and the health and well-being benefits associated with walking and biking.

Financial savings: Using the 2012 average County employee one-way commute distance of 12 miles, average reported fuel economy of 25 mpg, and the current average Bay Area gasoline cost per gallon of$4.03, individual employees are paying $1,231.83 each year on their commute. Eliminating one commute day per week would save each employee about $246.36 per year. Looked at another way, if 85% of employees who currently drive solo to work eliminated one commute day per week, altogether we could save $926,314 in a year!

In addition, if each employee chose to clean commute one day per week we would save approximately 2,600 metric tons of eCO2. The original Commute reduction goal for 2010 over 2000 levels was 3,150 tons. That reduction was achieved due to the reduction in number of county employees. As the Countyworkforce grows through the economic recovery we can see that this reduction wasn’t permanent; andtherefore, a specific commute program needs to be implemented to achieve that original goal.

Brand Concept: One Day Clean Commute. Colors and logos have been developed by The Engine is Red, local marketing agency. The logo will be used in conjunction with all the campaign ideas and can be

69

2

painted on the bike lockers, used on promotional posters, the website, at events, on stickers for carpoolers, etc.

Collaboration: One Day Clean Commute will be facilitated by the Energy and Sustainability Division in General Services and implemented in all departments within the County. Additionally we will work with

the Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA) to launch the campaign in any cities that are also interested in participating. Large local companies such as Agilent, Kaiser, Medtronic, and Sutter will alsobe invited to use the brand and campaign concepts to motivate their employees to clean commute.

Clean Commute Advocates: We will recruit advocates for the program to help get the word out in theirdepartments and encourage others to modify their commute. People who have been nominated for theGreen Champion awards and those who participated in our World Café in May would be good candidates. We will invite participants to a kick off meeting, share the campaign ideas with them, receive their feedback, and empower them to share the program with their fellow employees.

Campaign Ideas:

1. Kickoff Campaign: For 8 weeks, from November 4 – December 27 we will promote a campaign to motivate employees to join One Day. Prizes funded by 511.org include two gift cards to Oliver’s Market.

The $300 gift card will be for the person who has the greatest reduction in emissions over the program and the $200 gift card will be for the person that does the most trips. In addition we would provide two$25 gift cards each week to employees who log their commute trips into the 511.org commute diary.

2. Clean Commute Champion Awards: This annual award will be given to employees in each departmentwho are identified by their fellow colleagues as making significant improvements in their commute. In November, an email will go out to launch the six month competition that will run November through May. Staff in each department will be asked to nominate a fellow employee who makes significant changes in their commute during the six months. A group lunch will be hosted for all the champions within each department. The Chair of the Board (or a back up) will be invited to be present at this lunchhosted at a nice restaurant in Santa Rosa.

3. Competition between Departments: A contest between departments will be held to see which department can see the greatest improvement. Gift cards will be given as incentives for those that choose a clean commute. Board members, celebrities, and others who clean commute to work will be highlighted to gain publicity for the program. An ad campaign will be created that makes it cool and sexyto clean commute.

4. Rideshare matching service: Using the employee map and contact info provided by ISD, customized emails will be sent to County employees asking if they would like to be paired with another employee that lives in their neighborhood/close by. Those that opt-in will be paired with other interested carpoolers and provided with some tips on how to best coordinate their carpool. Four to six weeks afterthe paring a survey will be sent to determine which carpools are successful. We will also collaborate with Carma (formerly WeGo Sonoma) on this part of the program.

70

3

5. Telecommuting: A County-adopted Telecommuting Policy revision is needed. We plan to work with Human Resources and the CAO’s office on this update that can be applied throughout the organization.

se

e

f rg

Promotion of telecommuting can come through the Intranet landing page and through emails from Department Heads to their employees.

6. Bicycling: A Bike to Work station at the County Administration Center will be set up one day each month from 7-8:30 a.m. Simple food like bagels, cream cheese, coffee, and juice will be offered to thothat bike or choose another form of clean commute.

7. Public Transit: The County’s existing free bus pass program will continue. The program will be promoted via the Intranet, posters around campus, and encouragement by the commute champions. Ads could be placed on Sonoma County Transit and Santa Rosa City Bus.

8. Electric Vehicle Education: Education and promotion of electric vehicles will be provided to employees. Models available, fuel cost reductions, EV charging station locations, etc. will be provided.

Webpage: A webpage that provides information on the campaign and resources for participants will bea valuable asset to this program. The landing page should be simple with sharp images of clean commuters and a very brief description of the program. Then the five icons will be able to expand as thcursor moves over them, which when clicked go to that page to provide resources on that specific mode. One page will also describe the Clean Commute Champions campaign. The website will be developed in house, using The Engine-created logo, photos from the web, and content generated by staff. It will be hosted on the County website, and can also include the clean commute video.

Funding: Some General Services General Fund support will be helpful to launch the program. There is currently no money in the Energy and Sustainability budget to fund this program. Additional support could come from BAAQMD, MTC, and/or SCTA/RCPA.

Budget: To launch we need at least $28,000 for the remainder of this FY. This includes $20,000 for staftime for outreach, events, ride matching, etc. and $8K for the website and supporting materials. 511.owill provide support for the incentives/awards.

Staffing: Sam Ruark will be the primarily lead on this project with Anita Adams assisting on the websitedesign and where needed. Management support from Liz Yager and Jose Obregon will be helpful in providing ideas and supporting the program across the County organization.

Timeline:

September 17 - meet with Jose and Liz, secure funding September 2013 – Meet with Lauren and Suzanne (RCPA) and determine if they have any funding and see if they would like to help us bring the cities into the program October 2013 – Website Development Mid-October 2013 – Commute survey, establish baseline Late-October 2013 - Meet with Clean Commute Champions within the County Mid-November – Provide Commute survey results

71

4

November 3, 2013 Launch program with 6 week competition November 2013 – May 2014, run campaign Mid-November – Budget proposal for 13-14 January 2014 announce first and second place winners of six week commute competition Jan – March 2014 – Recruit City and local business participation January 2014 – Program Improvement Plan for a Commute Coordinator March 2014 – Mini Bike to Work Day event May 2014 – Awards for Commute Champions (nominated by fellow employees); winner’s dinner held. May 16, 2014 – Bay Area Bike to Work Day Early June 2014 – Program assessment June 2014 – Initiate next 6 month award period for most improved commuter by department Early to mid 2014 - SB 1339 will go into effect and we will have six months to comply. Employers with 50or more full-time employees will have to offer their employees one of the following:

• The option to pay for their transit, vanpooling, or bicycling expenses with pre-tax dollars, asallowed by federal law;

• A transit or vanpool subsidy up to $75 per month • A free shuttle or vanpool operated by or for the employer; or • An alternative program that provides similar benefits in reducing single-occupant vehicles

72

Staff Report To: SCTA Board of Directors

From: Suzanne Smith

Item: 5.2 – Regional Agency Reports: SMART, NCRA, MTC, ABAG, BAAQMD, CALCOG, Self Help Counties Coalition


Recent updates from:

Issue:

• Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) (Attached)

)

• North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA)

• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

• Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)

• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD

• Self Help Counties Coalition

The following links provide information regarding various regional agencies and issues

Background: :

• MTC Executive Director’s Report

o http://www.mtc.ca.gov/news/ed_report.htm

• California Association of Councils of Government

o http://www.calcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/26

This is an informational item only.


73

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/news/ed_report.htm�

http://www.calcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/26�

Technical Advisory Committee

MEETING AGENDA

December 5, 2013 1:30 PM Sonoma County Transportation Authority

SCTA Large Conference Room 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206

Santa Rosa, California 95401

Note: The Ramp Metering Technical Advisory Committee will meet on January 23, 2014 at 12:00 P.M. immediately preceding the SCTA TAC meeting.

ITEM 1. Introductions

2. Public Comment

3. Approval of Minutes, September 26, 2013* – DISCUSSION / ACTION

4. Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)/Transportation Development Act, Article 3 (TDA3) Quarterly Report* - DISCUSSION / ACTION

5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update* - DISCUSSION

6. Assembly Bill 417 Update* - DISCUSSION

7. Local Streets and Roads Working Group Update DISCUSSION

8. Measure M DISCUSSION / ACTION

6.1 Measure M Maintenance of Effort Policy Compliance

6.2 Measure M Invoicing Status*

6.3 Measure M Bike/Ped and LSP DRAFT Project Schedules for Strategic Plan Update*

9. Rail Update DISCUSSION

10. Upcoming SCTA Agenda for December 9, 2013 - DISCUSSION

11. Other Business / Comments / Announcements DISCUSSION

12. Adjourn – ACTION *Materials attached.

The next S C T A meeting will be held December 9, 2013 The next TAC meeting will be held January 23, 2014


DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation.

SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Technical Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 490 Mendocino Ave., Suite 206, during normal business hours.


74

1BCANCELLATION NOTICE

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

Scheduled For Monday, December 30, 2013

Has Been Cancelled

The next CAC meeting will be held

Monday, January 27, 2014 4:00 PM

Sonoma County Transportation Authority

4

490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206 Santa Rosa, California 95401

Conference Room

The next S C T A meeting will be held January 13, 201The next SCTA CAC meeting will be held January 27, 2014



SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the SCTA Citizens Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 490 Mendocino Ave., Suite 206, during normal business hours.


75

Planning Directors/Planning Advisory Committee

MEETING AGENDA

Thursday, December 12, 9:30 a.m. Sonoma County Transportation Authority

SCTA Large Conference Room 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206

Santa Rosa, California 95401 ITEM

1. Introductions

2. Public Comment/Announcements

3. Approval of the agenda – changes, additional discussion items

4. Approval of Minutes of October 24, 2013* - ACTION

5. Round table discussion

6. Climate Action 2020 (previously known as GRIP) – update*

7. Transportation Data and Analysis Resources*

8. Planning Funds*

9. Bike Planning

• Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan*

• AB 417*

10. Other Business /Next agenda

11. Adjourn

*Attachment

The next S C T A meeting will be held January 13, 2014

The next Planning Directors/PAC meeting will be held January 26, 2014

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.sctainfo.org. DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation. SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 490 Mendocino Ave., Suite 206, during normal business hours. Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference with the sound recording system.

76

http://www.sctainfo.org/�

1BCANCELLATION NOTICE

Transit Technical Advisory Committee (T-TAC)

Scheduled For Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Has Been Cancelled

The next T-TAC meeting will be held

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:00 AM

Sonoma County Transportation Authority 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206

Santa Rosa, California 95401 Conference Room

The next S C T A meeting will be held January 13, 2014 The next SCTA T-TAC meeting will be held January 15, 2014



SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the SCTA Transit Technical Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 490 Mendocino Ave., Suite 206, during normal business hours.


77

board of directors agenda packet - scta.ca.gov · form 700 requirement (report)* 4.3. fy12/13...

Documents